In today’s Platforum9 session, Jon Bartman, founder of The Law Tech Consultancy backed by the U.S. Legal Tech Fund, talked about the common pitfalls law firms encounter when selecting technology solutions. Drawing from seven years of experience helping firms navigate the legal tech landscape, Bartman revealed the systematic mistakes that lead to failed implementations and proven strategies for successful adoption.
The Multi-Hat Challenge Facing Modern Lawyers
Bartman highlighted the unique pressures facing today’s legal professionals. “Lawyers have this really tricky job,” he observed. “They’ve gotta be really good lawyers, but also they have to be really good customer success people. They have to be good business people. They have to be sales people, they have to be marketing people.”
This multi-faceted responsibility now extends to technology selection—an area where lawyers typically receive no formal training. “The newest hat that they have is actually a technology hat,” Bartman noted, recognising that technology decisions have become essential to competitive survival.
The Historic Tech Trap: When Legacy Becomes Liability
One of the most pervasive problems involves firms clinging to outdated technology solutions. “The biggest issue on getting it wrong is sticking with historic tech,” Bartman explained. “Decisions were made 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 years ago. This is the right tool for us. It’s amazing. It’s brilliant.”
This technological inertia creates a self-perpetuating cycle. Lawyers, already overworked with tight deadlines, default to familiar tools rather than exploring alternatives. When they experience frustration with outdated systems, they often conclude that “technology doesn’t work for me,” creating resistance to future adoption.
Contractual complications reinforce this trap. “The amount of times that I still hear… ‘oh, I hate that tool. It’s awful. But we’ve got nine months left of it because we signed up last year,'” Bartman observed. Auto-renewal clauses often extend these problematic relationships indefinitely.
The Quick Decision Disaster
Perhaps the most critical mistake involves rushing technology selection processes. “Don’t make quick decisions,” Bartman emphasised. “Many of these are very commercial enterprises. These solutions, they all have enormous sales targets to hit.”
Sales tactics particularly challenge lawyers who lack software procurement experience. When firms say they need a “Gen AI tool,” they often search online, speak to one vendor, and consider evaluation complete. Pressure tactics like “if you sign by tomorrow, I can do it for £100 instead of £200” blindside lawyers into poor choices.
The Right Process: A Five-Minute Foundation
Contrary to assumptions about extensive evaluation requirements, Bartman advocates for an efficient initial assessment. “It’s five minutes, by the way. That’s not like, ‘oh, we’ve gotta sit down for a week and work out and we’re gonna go on a partner’s retreat.'”
This focused evaluation involves answering fundamental questions: “This is what we do, this is where we think we can get some help.” The process then expands to systematic vendor evaluation: “See what’s out there that fits your need… understand what use cases that they’re gonna give to you that resonate with your business.”
Only when firms clearly understand both their requirements and available solutions can they make informed decisions that drive genuine value.
ROI-Focused Implementation: Time Equals Money
Bartman consistently returns to return on investment as the ultimate measure of success. “No legal tech should be there to look good,” he stated. “Everything else should have a purpose that saves time and time equals money in a law firm.”
This principle helps avoid common implementation failures: purchasing technology that sits unused. “Don’t have things that then become cost centres because we bought it for 30 people, 10 people are using it, 20 people aren’t. Your return on investment will become zero because you are wasting valuable resource.”
Specialisation Over Standardisation
Bartman challenges the assumption that firms need comprehensive, one-size-fits-all solutions. “If I’m a litigation specialist, I can have a very different set of skills that are needed compared to someone that sits in corporate or someone that sits in tax,” he explained.
This specialised approach extends to licensing strategies: “Don’t feel that if you’ve got a 50 man law firm, I have to buy 50 licenses. Actually, I’ve got 10 people that are doing that kind of work. I’m gonna buy 10 licenses.”
Even large firms employ this strategy successfully. “Even some of the very biggest law firms in this country are utilising some tools with 10, 15 people because it’s specific to what they do and how they do it.”
The Junior Lawyer Advantage
One of Bartman’s most compelling arguments involves engaging junior lawyers in technology selection. “A lot of this technology is not aimed at partners,” he noted. “The real backbreaking work is done by the juniors… but the real backbreaking work is now very well represented by a piece of technology.”
Junior lawyers represent the primary users of many legal technology tools, particularly those addressing document review and administrative tasks. Their involvement ensures chosen solutions address real workflow challenges rather than perceived needs identified by senior staff.
The demographic considerations are equally important: “Partners in law firms are slightly older, slightly less tech averse… buying for his whole team that are gonna use it means that you’re gonna push up your return on investment.”
Beyond practical considerations, involving junior lawyers creates competitive advantages in recruitment and retention in an increasingly competitive talent market.
Technology as Competitive Differentiator
Bartman advocates for transparency and collaboration that can enhance client relationships and win new business. “If you are utilizing tech in some way… it’s got to be something that can become collaborative,” he explained.
This collaborative approach addresses fundamental client concerns about transparency. “We can reduce this project from £20K to £18K ’cause we’re gonna utilise technology,” demonstrating clear value to cost-conscious clients.
The competitive implications extend to business development. When pitching for work, technology capabilities serve as differentiators: “What is gonna be a key differentiator is how you’re gonna run that piece of business… we’re gonna make this a truly collaborative effort.”
The Trust and Transparency Revolution
Drawing from his own experience during a company flotation, Bartman illustrated how technology addresses fundamental trust issues. His story of receiving an unexpected £60,000 fee increase at midnight exemplifies transparency problems that technology can solve.
“Having that collaborative effort between me as a client and my law firm would’ve made life so much easier,” he reflected. Modern technology eliminates many inefficiencies and communication gaps that create such situations.
The broader principle involves extending personal relationship qualities into professional service delivery. “Every single lawyer will say, ‘I’ve got a great relationship with my client because I’m transparent with them.’ Except that doesn’t extend necessarily to the work that you are doing.”
Technology enables transparency throughout service delivery. Real-time project visibility and collaborative platforms ensure clients understand progress, costs, and timelines without constant communication.
Implementation Strategy: Starting Small and Building Success
Bartman’s recommendations emphasise gradual approaches rather than comprehensive overhauls. “Take your time, see what’s out there. Take them demos… You don’t have to buy anything,” he advised.
The proof of concept phase allows firms to test effectiveness with limited risk. Success builds internal confidence and provides concrete evidence for broader adoption decisions. “Get some other people involved. Get them to really buy into the technology. They’re the ones that are using it.”
Rather than imposing technology decisions from above, successful implementation requires user engagement and buy-in from the beginning.
Conclusion
Bartman’s insights reveal that successful legal technology adoption requires more strategic thinking than technical expertise. The most common failures stem from process problems—rushing decisions, excluding end users, and ignoring ROI considerations—rather than technology limitations.
Key principles for success include:
- Problem-First Analysis: Identify specific friction points before exploring solutions
- Inclusive Decision-Making: Involve actual users, particularly junior lawyers
- ROI Focus: Ensure every investment demonstrates measurable value
- Specialisation Strategy: Select targeted tools rather than comprehensive solutions
- Client Collaboration: Use technology as competitive differentiator
- Gradual Implementation: Start with proof of concepts and build incrementally
- Enhance Transparency: Leverage technology to address traditional communication challenges
The legal profession’s technology transformation is inevitable, but success depends on thoughtful, strategic approaches rather than reactive responses to competitive pressure. Firms that invest time in proper evaluation processes, engage the right people in decision-making, and focus on genuine operational improvements will find technology becomes a source of competitive advantage rather than an expensive distraction.
As Bartman concluded: “Take your time, see what’s out there… There will be tools that will fit exactly the way that you work and the way that you work is gonna be different to anybody else out there, but the tools will be right for you, and that’s what’s important.”
