Choosing the right technology starts with understanding how your firm works, what it needs and whether the systems you already have could deliver more.
David Baskerville recently contributed to a Today’s Conveyancer feature on how law firms can select the right technology. Below, we share his full responses to the questions, drawing on Baskerville Drummond’s experience of helping firms review their systems and make informed technology decisions.
From reviewing existing software to involving the right people and challenging suppliers, David explores what firms should consider before committing to change, and why training, implementation and ongoing support deserve as much attention as the software itself.
Law firms are sitting on tech stacks that nobody has properly reviewed in years.
How can firms tackle this issue?
Start with an honest audit. Not a sales-led “health check” from your incumbent supplier(s), but an independent assessment of what you have, what it costs, and whether it still supports the firm’s operational and strategic objectives.
In my experience, most firms have never fully catalogued their technology stack, let alone evaluated whether each system is delivering value. We regularly find firms paying for unused modules, maintaining infrastructure designed for a pre-cloud era, or working around performance issues that staff have simply normalised over time.
The good news is that the solution does not need to be disruptive. First, establish a clear picture of the current environment. Then benchmark it against comparable firms and identify the biggest operational, financial, and client-service improvements. Prioritise quick wins first, followed by longer-term strategic change.
The key is to treat technology as an ongoing management discipline rather than a once-a-decade project. Firms routinely review insurance, compliance and financial risk exposure; technology should be reviewed with the same regularity and rigour. Even a light-touch annual review of systems, contracts, integrations and renewal dates can prevent years of unnecessary cost and technical debt.
Who should be responsible for road testing new features and bolt-ons?
Responsibility for testing new technology should sit with the people who actually use it day to day, not solely with IT. That means fee earners, secretaries and operational staff working alongside someone who understands both the technical landscape and the firm’s operational objectives.
One of the most common mistakes firms make is evaluating systems in isolation and deploying them with minimal user involvement. We repeatedly see software introduced without sufficient testing, training or change management, only for adoption to stall and teams to revert to legacy processes.
The most effective firms create “super-users” or departmental champions within practice areas. These individuals help road test new functionality, provide structured feedback to suppliers, and support colleagues during rollout. Crucially, they also act as a bridge between operational teams, IT and leadership.
That role needs proper support. Super-users need time, visibility and a direct line into strategic technology decision-making. Without that, firms risk making technology decisions in a vacuum and missing the practical realities of how people actually work.
Who within law firms is selecting the technology and software firms are using?
Are they the right people? If not who should be?
In most small-to-mid-sized law firms, technology decisions are typically made by a combination of the managing partner, practice manager and, where one exists, the IT manager. The challenge is not capability or intent; it is that these individuals are often making high-impact decisions in an increasingly complex technology market, frequently relying on vendor demonstrations and peer recommendations to guide them.
Peer insight has value, but it should not drive procurement strategy in isolation. The 2025 Legal Tech Review found that 58% of legal technology discovery is driven by peer recommendation. That may be a useful starting point, but it becomes risky when decisions will shape operational efficiency, compliance and client service for the next decade.
The most effective approach is a cross-functional selection process. Firms need senior leadership involvement to align investment with strategy, operational stakeholders who understand the realities of day-to-day workflows, and technical expertise capable of assessing integration, security and scalability. In conveyancing practices, especially where efficiency and process consistency are critical, operational input is essential.
Independent advice can also be invaluable. Software vendors are naturally skilled at presenting strengths; firms need equal rigour in identifying limitations, implementation risks, and long-term commercial implications before commitments are made.
What is driving their decision process in your view? Are they the right drivers?
In many firms, technology decisions are still driven reactively rather than strategically. A looming contract renewal, an end-of-life platform, a vendor acquisition or a major operational issue suddenly forces the conversation. By that stage, firms are often selecting under pressure rather than through a structured evaluation process.
Other common influences include headline cost, an impressive product demonstration, or recommendations from peer firms. None of those are inherently wrong, but they become problematic when treated as the primary basis for a long-term investment decision.
One additional driver at the moment, particularly in property matters, is AI. Many firms feel pressure to adopt AI in some form, often without a clearly defined operational objective. In some cases, firms hope AI will help them process greater volumes of transactions at lower cost or demonstrate technological leadership to clients and competitors. The risk is that firms cannot clearly articulate the underlying use case and instead expect AI vendors to define the strategy for them. That dynamic is dangerous: it can lead to poorly scoped deployments, weak governance, unclear accountability, and solutions designed to impress in demonstrations rather than deliver measurable operational outcomes. The right drivers should be far more strategic: alignment with the firm’s business objectives, fitness for purpose against clearly defined operational requirements, the supplier’s delivery and support track record within the legal sector, and the total cost of ownership over the life of the system. That means looking beyond licence fees to implementation effort, integrations, training, user adoption and ongoing operational support.
In conveyancing practices, particularly, firms should also consider speed-to-competency. A technically capable system still fails commercially if teams cannot become productive quickly or if the platform does not properly support the high-volume, process-driven nature of conveyancing work. The firms that achieve the best outcomes tend to evaluate technology through the lens of operational efficiency and long-term sustainability, rather than short-term procurement pressure.
What should firms be thinking about when it comes to selecting their software
Strategy should come before software. The biggest mistake I see firms make is jumping straight into product selection before properly defining what they actually need from the system.
The starting point should be understanding the business itself: its workflows, operational pain points and long-term objectives. A high-volume conveyancing practice will have very different requirements from a boutique private client or commercial firm. Firms also need to carefully consider integration requirements, client communication expectations, reporting capabilities, and how the system will support future growth.
Once those requirements are clear, the firm should run a structured procurement process. That means defining measurable requirements, issuing a formal request for tender, and assessing products against real operational scenarios rather than polished vendor demonstrations. Reference checks are equally important, ideally with firms of a similar size, profile and workload.
Implementation should never be treated as an afterthought. Even the strongest platform can fail if it is poorly configured, inadequately tested or introduced without proper training and change management. Successful projects require firms to budget and plan for the full delivery lifecycle, including configuration, data migration, integrations, user adoption and ongoing support, rather than focusing solely on licence cost.
How much do firms understand the capability of their own software
In most cases, firms understand far less of their software’s capabilities than they think they do. This is one of the most consistent findings across the IT reviews we conduct.
Many firms are only using a small proportion of the functionality already available within their existing systems. Staff often describe platforms as “clunky” or “overly complex”, but when we investigate further, the issue is rarely the software alone. More often, the problem is a lack of configuration, training and operational adoption.
A related issue is duplication. It is increasingly common to find multiple products doing essentially the same job (for example: search, AML, source-of-funds/wealth checks, onboarding, and identity verification). Historically, firms purchased point solutions to address specific gaps; over time, many of those products expanded into adjacent functional areas. Without a structured review, firms can end up paying for overlapping capabilities, maintaining unnecessary integrations, and training users in multiple ways to do the same task. A focused assessment of end-to-end workflows and product coverage will typically highlight where one platform can be used more effectively and where other tools can be retired—streamlining the stack and delivering immediate cost savings.
We frequently see a disconnect between IT teams and the firms they serve. Legal teams are often unaware of what the system can actually do, while IT departments do not always have clear visibility into the frustrations and inefficiencies users experience day to day. The result is that firms continue paying for capabilities they never fully realise.
That disconnect has a real commercial impact. It creates inefficiency, inconsistent processes, and unnecessary workarounds, while limiting the returns firms achieve from their technology investments. In many cases, firms do not need entirely new systems, they need to use their existing systems far more effectively.
What onus is on existing suppliers to educate clients?
Suppliers have a significant responsibility for client education and adoption. Their role should not end once the software has been implemented.
The strongest vendors are proactive: they regularly highlight new functionality, provide ongoing training, share best practices across their client base, and conduct meaningful account reviews that focus on operational value rather than simply protecting a renewal. In a fast-moving legal technology market, firms should not be expected to discover every capability on their own.
Too many suppliers still operate on a “sell and forget” model, becoming visible again only when contract renewal approaches or competitive pressure emerges. That ultimately serves neither party well. If clients are only using a fraction of the platform’s capability, they are unlikely to achieve the efficiency gains or return on investment they originally expected.
That said, firms also need to engage with the process. The most successful technology relationships are collaborative: suppliers invest in education and enablement, while firms allocate internal time to training, feedback, and continuous improvement. Technology delivers the best outcomes when adoption is treated as an ongoing partnership rather than a one-off implementation project.
What onus is on prospective new suppliers?
Prospective suppliers have a responsibility to be transparent about where their product genuinely improves on the incumbent system, and equally clear about where limitations or compromises exist.
Firms should expect suppliers to demonstrate not only core functionality, but also integration capability, workflow fit and the practical realities of implementation. Demonstrations should be grounded in real operational scenarios rather than highly controlled sales environments designed to showcase only best-case outcomes.
I understand the commercial pressures involved; suppliers naturally want to win business. But overselling creates long-term problems. Failed implementations damage productivity, erode confidence internally, and often make firms more resistant to future change initiatives. That harms the client, the supplier and, ultimately, the wider legal technology market.
The suppliers that build lasting client trust are typically those willing to have honest conversations early in the process. Firms make better decisions when vendors are transparent about strengths, limitations, implementation effort and the level of operational change required for success. That kind of realism is far more valuable in the long term than a flawless sales presentation.
David Baskerville
07769 946883
Latest Articles
AI in the Right Way – Webinar | Thu 1 October
AI is moving quickly. For law firms, the harder question is how to turn that pace of change into something practical, controlled and genuinely useful. On 1 October, Cathy Kirby and David Baskerville will be delivering a webinar exclusively for LawNet members, looking...
AI Watermarking Is Coming. What Happens When the Watermark Gets Washed Out?
The EU's new AI transparency rules have pushed a potentially misunderstood concept into the mainstream: watermarking AI-generated text. In this article, David Baskerville discusses the principles and legislative background to the use of AI Watermarks, and explains how...
Microsoft is retiring SMS & Voice authentication in Microsoft 365 – what does it mean for law firms?
Microsoft has announced a change to the way some users authenticate to Microsoft 365. From 1 September 2026, they will begin making passkeys the default authentication experience for users currently enabled for SMS or voice authentication. Then, from 1 February 2027,...
Talk to us today
Get In Touch
