Senior technology leaders from major UK law firms reveal evolving procurement priorities that go far beyond traditional security requirements
UK law firms are fundamentally reshaping how they evaluate and purchase legal technology, moving beyond basic security considerations to demand comprehensive integration capabilities, vendor viability assessments, and measurable business impact, according to insights from a recent panel discussion.
The shift reflects growing sophistication among law firm buyers who now view technology procurement as a strategic business decision rather than an IT purchasing exercise, according to three senior technology leaders speaking at “Grow London: Insights & Networking with UK LegalTech buyers,” an event hosted by London & Partners and the Department for Business and Trade.
“The days of selling technology based on features alone are over,” said Gerard Frith, Entrepreneur in Residence at Taylor Wessing, a global law firm with approximately £500 million in revenue. Firms now evaluate whether they could build specific functionality internally within six months and compare those costs against vendor solutions.
Non-Billable Time Drives Technology Investment
Understanding this procurement evolution requires examining what’s driving the urgency behind these changes. The motivation stems from persistent operational inefficiencies that drain attorney time away from revenue-generating client work, the panelists revealed.
Greg Baker, who serves as both Senior Lawyer and AI Innovation Lead at Linklaters, identified three critical areas consuming excessive lawyer time: “Business development and marketing and pitching for work is a big area. Anything to do with billing, finance, invoicing, time sheets, all of those areas, there’s a lot of time spent on that lawyer time. There’s lawyer time spent on knowledge activities.”
These operational pressures affect firms of all sizes, according to Nick Harrison, CTO of Oury Clark, a 200-person multidisciplinary firm. “Being a much smaller firm, what’s interesting is we suffer from many of the same problems,” Harrison said, citing particular challenges with compliance processes that are “continuously getting more and more complicated over time.”
Integration Capabilities Now Make-or-Break Factor
These operational challenges have fundamentally reshaped what firms prioritize when evaluating technology solutions. While security certification remains foundational, integration capabilities have emerged as equally critical in vendor selection. Modern law firms operate complex technology ecosystems that must share data seamlessly across document management systems, client relationship platforms, and financial management tools.
“Solutions that cannot integrate with established platforms like iManage, Salesforce, or Microsoft Suite face significant adoption barriers regardless of their standalone functionality,” Harrison explained, noting that his firm uses software from multiple countries, including Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, Japan, India, and South Africa.
Alongside integration requirements, data residency requirements represent non-negotiable baseline requirements for most firms handling sensitive client information. UK and EU jurisdiction preferences aren’t suggestions—they’re absolute requirements that can immediately disqualify vendors unable to demonstrate clear compliance with local data protection regulations.
Client Expectations Drive Technology Adoption
The procurement landscape has also been transformed by external pressures from increasingly sophisticated clients. Client sophistication around legal technology has increased dramatically, fundamentally altering how firms approach technology adoption. Baker noted a significant shift since 2018: “Rather than asking permission to use technology, now, quite frankly, if we ask the client, they say, ‘Well, why are you asking? We’ve expected you to be using this, we are as well.'”
This evolution creates new challenges as clients increasingly use AI tools themselves. Harrison described how one tax partner “no longer has to work with just the client or the customer, but also the answer from an LLM, which is actually wrong as well. So he spends twice the time, which becomes a more expensive bill for the customer.”
Many large corporate clients now utilize the same technology tools as their external counsel, driven largely by the growth of legal operations teams within corporate legal departments. This shift has transformed the dynamic from permission-seeking to expectation-setting around technology usage.
Vendor Viability Under Intense Scrutiny
Beyond client pressures, the rapidly evolving technology landscape itself has created new evaluation criteria. The rapid pace of AI development has intensified focus on vendor sustainability and innovation capacity. Firms now scrutinize development velocity, financial stability, and long-term product roadmaps as carefully as they examine current features.
“We’re very much looking for data portability, and we are to some extent assuming that we might buy something for a year and potentially then discontinue that service as competitors overtake or provide alternative offerings,” Frith explained.
This uncertainty about vendor longevity has also influenced architectural preferences. Platform architecture increasingly trumps point solutions in procurement decisions. Firms favor technology that can expand across multiple use cases rather than narrow tools that address specific practice areas, reflecting both cost optimization strategies and recognition that broader platforms demonstrate better long-term value.
ROI Measurement Remains a Complex Challenge
Despite these evolving procurement criteria, one fundamental challenge persists across all firm types. Measuring return on investment in legal technology presents unique complexities that distinguish it from other professional services industries. The bespoke nature of legal work and difficulty establishing controlled comparison datasets force firms to develop creative measurement approaches.
“It depends quite a lot on vertical versus horizontal solutions,” Frith acknowledged. For AI tools specifically, he noted that lawyers are “required to record every time they use it, how they use it,” but cautioned that meaningful comparison remains challenging because “you are not really comparing like for like.”
However, some practice areas offer clearer measurement opportunities. For practice-specific solutions, particularly those supporting fixed-fee work like securities offerings or regulatory filings, firms can establish clearer time-saving metrics by comparing pre- and post-implementation billing data. These scenarios provide the most definitive ROI calculations because market pricing benchmarks exist and time savings translate directly to improved profitability.
Geographic Location Less Important Than Support Quality
While firms have become more demanding about technology capabilities, they’ve also become more flexible about vendor characteristics that might have previously been barriers. Vendor headquarters location rarely disqualifies capable providers, but it affects evaluation criteria around support, compliance, and cost structures. The key lies in understanding how location affects practical implementation and ongoing support requirements.
“It doesn’t matter, but there are things that are important,” Harrison said, noting that firms must address factors like international data transfer agreements and governance requirements regardless of vendor sophistication.
Baker cited the example of working with an Australian verification platform, noting that initial challenges, including time zone differences and financial due diligence, were eventually resolved. “It wasn’t really until they had one person on the ground in the UK that really lit up interest in them from other firms.”
Procurement Timelines Extend for Complex Solutions
These increasingly sophisticated evaluation criteria have practical implications for both vendors and firms. The evaluation process typically follows a structured progression from demonstration through test drive, pilot implementation, and full deployment. Each stage introduces additional complexity, particularly when solutions begin interacting with client information or firm systems.
Cloud-based solutions with single sign-on capabilities can progress through early stages relatively quickly, while solutions requiring deep system integration face more extensive evaluation timelines. Procurement for complex solutions often extends six months or more, particularly for enterprise-wide implementations requiring executive approval and cross-departmental coordination.
Technology Partnership Model Emerges
The complexity of modern legal technology procurement has also fundamentally altered the vendor-client relationship model. Law firms increasingly seek technology partners rather than simple vendors, preferring relationships with companies that demonstrate a genuine understanding of legal workflows and can adapt solutions based on practical implementation feedback.
“We’ve got this idea of demo, test drive, pilot, proof of concept, and the complexity of the requirements increases,” Baker explained, noting that maximum security requirements only kick in when solutions begin interacting with client information.
This partnership approach reflects recognition that successful legal technology adoption requires ongoing collaboration rather than one-time implementation projects, particularly as AI capabilities become integrated across legal technology solutions.
What Vendors Need to Know
Given these evolving dynamics, the message from UK law firms is clear: successful vendors must demonstrate a deep understanding of the economics of legal practice, client service imperatives, and operational realities that drive firm decision-making.
Winners will articulate not just what their technology does, but how it transforms the fundamental value proposition between law firms and their clients. They’ll provide comprehensive security documentation upfront, design for seamless integration from day one, and build platforms that grow with the firm’s needs.
Most importantly, they’ll recognize that selling to law firms means selling to organizations where billable time remains sacred, client service is paramount, and adoption success depends as much on change management as technical capability.
The integration of AI capabilities across legal technology solutions will likely accelerate these trends, requiring even more sophisticated evaluation frameworks and closer attention to vendor innovation capacity and development velocity in an increasingly AI-driven legal services market.
Assisted by GAI and LLM Technologies
Source: HaystackID used with permission from ComplexDiscovery OÜ
