A recent narrative shared at the International Legal Technology Association Conference (ILTACON) brings to light the chasm that exists in client experience among law firms.
The story, recounted by a former lawyer and current legal technology CEO, dramatically underscores a deficiency in how firms respond to requests for proposals (RFPs), as detailed in the
original article.
Engaging three major firms for personal legal work, the CEO noted vastly different experiences. The first, a Global 200 firm, offered a scant response, providing simply a partner’s name, an associate’s name, an hourly rate, and a LinkedIn profile. A second firm issued a generic overview of their practice group. Yet, it was the third firm that distinguished itself, showcasing specific matters handled, matching attorneys according to relevant experience, and providing well-grounded pricing projections. It is no surprise, then, that this firm secured the work.
This anecdote captures a broader concern within the legal community—the gap between technological investments and client-perceived value. Law firms have poured resources into artificial intelligence, driven largely by perceived client pressure, with 85% of firms reporting such investments. Despite these efforts, a majority of in-house counsel and private equity professionals do not perceive a tangible enhancement in their relationships with external counsel.
The narrative divulged three revealing statistics: 95% of firms believe their AI investments are complete, 85% acted due to perceived client pressure, and 53% followed industry trends rather than client-focused strategies. Consequently, many of these technologies are underutilized, with AI sitting at a mere 10% utilization rate in many firms. The pursuit of technology has become a box-ticking exercise, rather than a meaningful enhancement of client service.
For clients, metrics, outcomes, and tangible evidence of service improvement remain paramount. They demand more than a list of tools or technological names; they expect provable enhancements to legal service delivery. At firms like Litera, metrics are transparently shared, with marked improvements such as a 90x increase in workflow efficiency. However, such accountability appears to be lacking among many law firms.
Ultimately, it was institutional knowledge and client acumen that enabled the successful firm to secure the CEO’s engagement. Understanding the synergy of clients, matters, and in-house expertise—rather than sole reliance on AI—drove this achievement. The warning is clear: firms must adapt and strategically harness technology to enhance client experience, or risk falling further behind in an increasingly competitive landscape. Firms adept at demonstrating tangible returns on investment will differentiate themselves, winning not because they offer the lowest price but because they exhibit genuine client understanding.