A survey by Skills.law of what legal AI tools ‘major law firms’ would most recommend has found some very interesting results, with focused solutions generally doing better than ‘genAI convergence’ ones that offer a bit of everything.
The survey, which in effect provides a NPS, i.e. net promotor score, looked at just over 40 products offering legal AI – i.e. genAI – capabilities, with users asked to provide a score based on multiple criteria (see below). Around 100 law firms, mostly in the US, UK and Canada, plus a handful of legal tech consultants, had their inputs measured.
Here are the results of the Top 15 Vendors:
1. DeepJudge
2. Centari
3. Syntheia
4. Lega
5. SimplyAgree
6. Avvoka
7. vLex
8. DraftWise
– Vable
10. Legora
11. Jigsaw
– Relativity
– Josef
14. Definely
15. StructureFlow
Oz Benamram, who leads the group, told Artificial Lawyer: ‘Companies that focused on one thing were the most recommended.’
And it’s important to point out that the results simply reflect the view as to whether a person in a law firm would recommend that product to someone else. That view may be shaped by plenty of aspects, e.g. value for money, user experience, reliability and much more. It could even be shaped by something as human as whether the users get on well with the team at the legal tech company and feel they are responsive and supportive.
Benamram also told AL that very large legal tech companies such as LexisNexis and Thomson Reuters were in the survey, as well as well-known genAI startups such as Harvey, but all of those were outside the top 15 – based on this one survey.
Survey Meaning
So, what do the survey results mean? The first point is, as Benamram noted: a genAI convergence strategy (GAICS) plays less well, it would seem. Most of the companies above focus on a fairly specific group of tasks.
Meanwhile, there were a couple that have embraced GAICS (i.e. applying genAI to a very broad range of possible workflows from legal research to even M&A due diligence because of the adaptability of LLM technology to language understanding). For example, vLex came 7th. While Legora, which also provides a swathe of capabilities, although doesn’t have its own proprietary legal research library came 10th. Meanwhile, Lexis and TR were both outside of the Top 15.
Microsoft, i.e. Copilot and related genAI tools, was also included among those you could vote for and didn’t make it into the Top 15. This is not a surprise, given that Copilot is a ‘generic’ tool that has not been made for legal use cases, and even though it can be customised to do more it’s not in itself a ‘ready-made’ legal tech tool.
Another key point was the clearly evident fact that many of these are not large companies….yet. DeepJudge, which provides enterprise search, may have received plenty of funding, but it is listed on LinkedIn as having less than 50 staff.
Centari, which provides genAI capabilities to drive deals with improved legal data access, is also listed as having around 50 staff. Syntheia, which came third, is also relatively small compared to many legal tech companies.
It’s not until you get to vLex at 7th when you get to a very large company. Plus, we have Relativity at joint 11th, which is huge. But, those are the only two very large ones in the Top 15.
Why is that? It’s hard to say with just a ranking, but one can imagine that perhaps the smaller companies’ price points are better? Perhaps also smaller companies tend to be much more engaged with the buyers and provide more high-level support? In short, the law firms may be responding to a more personal touch and approach – but that’s just a theory at present, albeit one that is very possible.
Another insight is how geographically spread the companies are. DeepJudge is based in Switzerland. DraftWise, Centari and Lega are in New York. Legora is based in Sweden. Avvoka, Vable, Definely and StructureFlow are all based in the UK. And while vLex may be nominally a US-based company, it also has significant bases in the UK and Spain.
Does this mean that law firms will not use other companies’ tools that are not so recommended? Well, no. Most major law firms have contracts with Lexis and TR for a range of needs – especially legal research – and that will no doubt continue for a very long time to come.
Moreover, law firms may often use tools they would not recommend to others….and yes, it sounds counter-intuitive, but people stick with products because they’re already deeply integrated into the tech stack; that even if some may not like it, others do; or that changing to another supplier may not be easy or even possible as that need is not exactly met by others.
I.e. just because law firm X is not singing your praises doesn’t mean that you’re about to be dropped like a stone. Likewise, the above may well have scored highly, but will that lead to scaling and much greater use? That remains to be seen. That said, no doubt every one of these companies above will be pleased to be in the list.
The overall conclusion is: as always, there is everything to play for and legal tech, and especially legal AI, remains a field where size is not always a guarantee of success.
—
Criteria that Skills.law suggests may go into the recommendations:
𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁 𝗤𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗥𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆: Performance and effectiveness
𝗩𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗠𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆: Cost vs. Value, fair price, how widely used
𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆: Confidence in the safety and protection of personal data
𝗨𝘀𝗲𝗿 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲: Ease of use, intuitive interface
𝗖𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗿 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁: Responsive and effective customer service
𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: Seamless integration with other systems
𝗥𝗼𝗮𝗱𝗺𝗮𝗽: How much do you believe in the company’s vision
𝗝𝗼𝘆: Your experience interacting with the people at the company
𝗣𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗔𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁: Company’s values, ethics, and approach.
You can find more about Skills.law here.
(Note: those companies outside the Top 15 were not listed in a full ranking to save their blushes.)
