Robert Johnson, founder of Deal Techno, a dedicated legal tech recruitment company shared his insights into the new landscape of legal tech sales. Johnson, who has spent 15 years in the legal technology sector, shared insights on market dynamics, buyer fatigue, and the strategic shifts reshaping how legal tech companies approach their sales efforts.

The Great Salary Equalisation

Johnson opened with a striking observation about compensation parity: “Salary in legal tech land has really got to parody of law firms.” This represents a fundamental shift from just three or four years ago, when legal technology companies would struggle to attract lawyers due to significantly lower compensation packages.

The change has created new opportunities for lawyers seeking better work-life balance and equity participation without the traditional partnership track. As Johnson noted: “Three or four year PQE experience lawyers are now moving to legal technology companies… they have the ability to earn equity in that business without having to become partner and do 10 million hours to get to that point.”

The Procurement Challenge

The sales landscape has become considerably more complex over Johnson’s 15-year tenure. Where once legal tech vendors could work directly with partners, the introduction of innovation teams and procurement processes has created new challenges.

Johnson described the current dilemma: “The innovation teams get annoyed if you go straight to the partners because they feel like they’re getting left out the loop. But the innovation teams don’t always have any budget.” This tension between decision-makers and budget holders creates strategic uncertainty for sales teams trying to navigate the right entry points.

AI Fatigue and Budget Constraints

The rush to adopt AI solutions has created unintended consequences. Johnson observed that many firms “have blown their budgets on AI tools now as well… I think there’s probably a little bit of FOMO in some of those purchases.”

The licensing model for AI has also changed the sales dynamic. Unlike traditional firm-wide implementations, AI solutions might involve just three licenses to a firm, yet companies use these limited deployments for marketing purposes, raising questions about authentic client relationships.

The Niche Strategy

Johnson advocates strongly for focused market approaches: “How can you make your world as small as possible?” He illustrated this with his own company’s evolution, progressively narrowing from legal technology recruitment to contract lifecycle management companies, then to specific roles in specific geographic markets.

This philosophy extends to his advice for AI companies beyond the major players: “If it’s obscure, the better. So if it’s like escrow litigation… for companies based in offshore Canary Islands… that’s a great place to start because then when you go and speak to those firms, your elevator pitch really relates exactly to them rather than being just super generic.”

The Point Solution Renaissance

Market preferences have shifted cyclically between comprehensive platforms and specialised tools. Johnson explained that five years ago, buyers preferred enterprise solutions that “did 60, 70% of everything,” seeking the simplicity of single-vendor relationships.

However, improved API connectivity has revived interest in point solutions: “We’ve actually moved back to organisations being quite interested in point solutions to solve very specific problems and needs.” This trend favours AI startups that can address precise pain points without forcing buyers into comprehensive platform relationships.

The Pilot Paradox

When discussing proof-of-concept arrangements, Johnson highlighted the delicate balance required: “You have to find a balance between organisations not wasting your time, but also showing them sufficient goodwill that they will select you because ultimately if you don’t do it, your competitor’s gonna do it.”

His recommended approach involves paid proof-of-concepts with contractual commitments: “We will do like a paid proof of concept, and then if we are then selected, we would then discount the paid POC against the full license.”

Decision Makers vs. End Users

A persistent challenge in legal tech sales is the disconnect between those who authorise purchases and those who use the systems. Johnson emphasised: “The decision makers ultimately who hold the purse strings… they never use the solutions. So like if you use the example like in-house, so legal departments, a GC is never logging into a system.”

This creates a complex sales dynamic where vendors must address different audiences with different messaging. General Counsels care about risk management and departmental value perception, while end users focus on functionality and usability.

The Foundational Layer Problem

Despite the AI rush, Johnson predicts a return to basics: “A lot of these legal departments and law firms are buying AI solutions without thinking about foundational layer tech first… it’s the rubbish in, rubbish out from a data perspective.”

He anticipates that organisations will need to revisit “more boring solutions that solve table stake problems” after discovering their AI investments require clean, well-organised data to function effectively.

Geographic and Market Dynamics

Johnson addressed regional differences, noting that the US market remains ahead due to its litigious nature and higher legal spend. However, he cautioned against premature expansion: “I’ve seen so many legal technology companies see the shiny thing in the States… the states is effectively 50 plus countries in one.”

His advice for international expansion echoes his niche philosophy: focus on specific regions like New York rather than attempting to tackle the entire US market simultaneously.

The Lawyer Imperative

Credibility in legal tech sales increasingly requires legal credentials. Johnson revealed that major AI companies now mandate: “We just want lawyers. They don’t have to have any legal tech experience. They don’t need to know anything around prompt engineering, but they effectively just want lawyers to be able to credentialise themselves when they go and speak to a room of lawyers.”

This trend has created new career paths for lawyers seeking alternatives to traditional practice, though Johnson noted the challenge of role definition: “Multiple, the same title was used for multiple different types of roles in different companies.”

Collaboration and Buying Power

An emerging trend involves smaller firms collaborating to increase their negotiating power. Johnson cited examples from the Netherlands where firms have “clubbed together… to come up with like best practice and effective acquisitional buying power.”

This collaborative approach extends beyond technology procurement to shared resources for conferences and events, suggesting a broader shift towards collective purchasing strategies.

Future Outlook

Johnson remains optimistic about opportunities for lawyers in legal technology, noting strong interest from practitioners seeking career changes. The main barriers are often informational rather than motivational: “They want to move, but they don’t know how or don’t know where.”

The session concluded with Johnson’s perspective that while traditional law firms will continue to have their place, the excitement and opportunity in legal technology offer compelling alternatives for those seeking to shape the profession’s future.

The discussion revealed a legal technology sales landscape in transition, where success increasingly depends on strategic focus, authentic relationships, and understanding the complex dynamics between decision-makers and end users.