Moderator Alexander Irschenberger (CEO, Legal Tekno) led a discussion on how law firms can navigate an increasingly crowded and fast-moving legal tech landscape, with a particular focus on extracting real value from providers. Irschenberger emphasised that while the market is saturated with tools, the differentiator is no longer the technology itself, but how firms approach strategy, talent, and implementation.
The State of Legal Tech: Energy, Confusion, Opportunity
The session opened by highlighting the intensity of activity in legal tech, rapid investment, innovation, and experimentation. Irschenberger noted that many firms are testing tools without a clear strategy, leading to “pilot fatigue” and fragmented adoption. Larger firms, in particular, face increased complexity, often resulting in disjointed implementations rather than coordinated transformation.
Strategy Before Tools
A central theme was that tool selection should not be the starting point. Irschenberger argued that firms must first define:
- What they want to achieve as a business
- How technology aligns with that strategy
- Whether they aim to be “AI-enabled” or simply more efficient
Only after this should tools be considered. The widespread tendency to prioritise vendor selection over strategic clarity was identified as a key failure point.
Adoption is a People Problem, Not a Technology Problem
Successful adoption depends on the people using the tools, not leadership hires alone. Firms making progress are those where employees are curious and engaged with technology.
This raises implications for hiring and talent development:
- Firms may need to rethink recruitment criteria
- Curiosity and technical engagement are becoming essential skills
- Initiatives such as hackathons and internal “AI champions” can drive adoption at scale
Clients Are Driving the Next Phase
A notable shift is emerging from in-house legal teams. As they become more technologically sophisticated, they increasingly demand greater efficiency in service delivery, improved pricing transparency, and clear evidence of how technology is used within legal workflows. Irschenberger predicted that engagement letters will evolve to include expectations around the use of technology, particularly in areas such as due diligence, where efficiency gains are both visible and measurable.
The Myth of Differentiation in Legal Tech Tools
Despite the proliferation of vendors, most legal tech tools are built on similar underlying infrastructure, often relying on the same core AI models. As a result, tools are largely interchangeable, and the risk associated with vendor failure is relatively low. Differentiation, therefore, lies less in technical capability and more in usability, vendor relationships, and the ability to collaborate on product development. Firms should prioritise responsive vendors, aligned with their regional and operational needs, and open to feedback.
From Plug-and-Play to Bespoke Systems
The concept of “plug-and-play” legal tech is becoming increasingly outdated. With the rise of generative AI, systems are now inherently customisable, enabling firms to build more tailored solutions. Irschenberger highlighted that future legal tech environments will be highly bespoke, with firms assembling their own AI ecosystems rather than relying on single, standardised platforms. However, enterprise-grade requirements, particularly around security, mean that internally built solutions are unlikely to replace vendor products in the near term, even as tools such as “vibe coding” gain popularity.
Vendor Relationships and Resource Constraints
While vendors are investing heavily in hiring and development, their resources remain constrained. Firms must therefore be proactive in defining expectations, negotiating support, and ensuring that implementation resources are clearly agreed upon from the outset. Importantly, vendors cannot replace internal expertise. They may provide frameworks and guidance, but the responsibility for building workflows and embedding them into practice remains with the firm. Internal playbooks and processes are essential to unlocking value from any technology.
Rethinking the ‘One Tool’ Approach
The idea of a single, firm-wide solution was strongly challenged. Irschenberger advised a more targeted approach, where tools are selected at the practice group level and aligned with specific use cases. Firms should focus on building a stable core infrastructure, such as document management and communication systems, and then layer flexible tools on top. This modular approach is both more realistic and more cost-effective than attempting to implement a universal solution across the entire organisation.
Pricing and Market Dynamics
The session also addressed pricing dynamics within the legal tech market. Irschenberger argued that many legal tech tools have historically been overpriced, and that even discounted offerings often remain expensive when compared to general enterprise AI platforms. In many cases, specialist tools provide limited additional value over these broader solutions. Firms must therefore take a more critical approach to pricing, ensuring that tangible benefits justify any investment in legal tech.
Points To Consider
- Strategy must precede technology selection
- Adoption depends on people, not tools
- Clients will increasingly demand demonstrable efficiency
- Most tools are interchangeable; vendor relationships matter more
- Bespoke, modular systems are the future
- Internal capability is essential to realise value
