Avoiding the Hype Trap in Legal Tech: What to Ask Your Vendor

Modern legal tech is powerful, but not automatic. It takes structure, guidance, and hands-on support to succeed, which means firms need vendors who act as genuine partners rather than passive software suppliers.

The goal is not to avoid AI or slow down adoption. The goal is to ensure that every product you bring into the firm delivers real value, aligns with the way your teams work, and comes with the support required to grow. The legal tech hype trap affects firms that accept vague promises, generic onboarding, or incomplete answers. The firms that win ask tough, practical questions and expect their vendors to deliver clarity, not slogans.

For every innovation leader, practice manager, partner, and legal team, avoiding the hype trap in legal tech is a priority. What to ask your vendor is the first hurdle to overcome.

AI Tools Are Not Plug-and-Play

Many legal tech products are marketed as simple, fast, and friction-free. The truth is different. AI tools only succeed when teams receive ongoing onboarding, hands-on support, and clear communication. Without this, even the best technology stalls.

AI tools:

• Shift quickly
• Require monitoring
• Depend on structured onboarding.
• Need tailored training
• Benefit from ongoing optimisation

There is no world where a modern AI or legal tech system thrives on autopilot.These platforms interact with live matters, legal judgment, security controls, client expectations, and the realities of legal workflow. They require feedback, and coaching.

This is why the most innovative legal operations teams hold vendors accountable for:

• Detailed onboarding plans
• Clear adoption pathways
• Direct human support
• Workflow calibration
• Practice-area-specific guidance
• Continuous learning for new staff
• Regular refreshers for experienced teams

Your vendor should never disappear after the contract is signed. If they cannot explain how they support your team in month one, month six, and year two, the tool will never reach its full value.

Legal AI Products Evolve Quickly - Your Vendor Must Keep Pace

AI platforms evolve more rapidly than almost any other legal technology. Updates, new workflows, model improvements, data pipelines, security patches, and compliance refinements are constantly being introduced. A vendor that moves slowly cannot support your firm’s needs.

Innovation leaders should expect:

• Frequent product updates
• Clear release notes
• Early notice of significant feature changes
• Regular training refreshers
• Updated features tailored to specific practice areas
• Guidance on how new capabilities affect different teams

AI does not stand still.Your vendor should not, either.

The firms we see succeeding in Mary Technology’s ecosystem are the ones whose vendors:

• Stay close to the front line
• Watch how teams work.
• Adapt functionality as AI evolves.
• Provide updated training without waiting for the firm to ask.

If the vendor cannot explain how they keep your firm up to date, they are not ready to support long-term adoption.

Different Roles Use AI Differently - Training Must Reflect That

Legal tech fails when vendors treat every user the same. Partners work differently from associates. Paralegals work differently from support teams. Each group uniquely interacts with technology and requires a distinct training model.

Expect role-specific training for:

Partners

High-level workflows, risk controls, previews of matter visibility, and how AI affects client outcomes and billing.

Your vendor should demonstrate:

• Tailored walkthroughs
• Different training modules for each role
• User-specific documentation
• Clear examples of role-based success stories
• Guidance that reflects the workflow reality of your firm

Anything short of that limits adoption and increases risk.

AI Workflows Need Fast, Live Support - Not Slow Ticketing Systems

Legal work moves in real time. AI tools used in contract review, matter analysis, document generation, and research cannot wait days for vendor responses. Ticket-only support structures are too slow and too detached from the pressure legal teams operate under.

Modern AI workflows require:

• Live support
• Real-time troubleshooting
• Direct access to experts
• Fast escalation pathways
• Clear answers, not generic responses
• Human conversations

The best vendors offer:

• Dedicated success teams
• On-call specialists
• Fast, hands-on guidance
• Live training refreshers
• Issue resolution measured in minutes or hours, not days

Law firms and legal departments work to deadlines that can’t pause for a support queue. AI tools introduce complexity, and your vendor must be prepared to meet that complexity with responsive, human support.

If a vendor cannot guarantee live assistance or explain how urgent matters are handled, they are not suitable for an AI-driven environment.

Ask Vendors to Define Goals, Success Metrics, and Expected ROI

Many legal tech decisions fail because firms adopt tools without clear definitions of:

• What the tool should achieve
• What “success” looks like
• How the firm will measure progress
• What ROI to expect (and on what timeline)
• Which processes or matters should the tool improve?

Before adoption, ask your vendor to articulate:

Goals

Which workflows or legal processes are the AI meant to support?Which parts of the practice will it touch?What problems is it designed to solve?

Success Metrics

Turnaround time reduction?
Improved matter visibility?
Better contract management?
Consistent research processes?

Reduced time spent organising information?

ROI Metrics

Saved hours? Improved accuracy? Faster throughput? Better use of staff bandwidth? Better client outcomes? Fewer bottlenecks?

If the tech vendor cannot describe measurable outcomes or demonstrate how other firms have achieved them, your team will struggle to justify the investment.

Clear expectations make adoption more predictable, more structured, and more defensible to leadership.

What an Effective Legal Tech Trial Looks Like

Firms often fall for the hype trap because they don’t structure the trial properly. True evaluation requires:

A Small Pilot Group

• Select users who have the necessary bandwidth and interest.
• Select a mix of senior and junior roles.
• Ensure each person understands their responsibilities.

Consistent Check-Ins

• Weekly or fortnightly sessions.
• Usage reviews.
• Workflow assessments.
• Real-world examples of impact.

Clear Champions

• Users who share wins.
• Partners who advocate for the tool.
• Associates who demonstrate time savings.

Sharing Early Wins

• Short videos.
• Internal emails.
• Screenshots showing reduced time.
• Matter comparisons before and after adoption.
• The point of a pilot is not to experiment wildly.
• It is to generate clear evidence.

A vendor should guide your firm through:

• Setup
• Training
• Success measurement
• Ongoing review
• Outcomes reporting
• Recommendations for expansion

A vendor who leaves pilots to the firm is not supporting actual adoption.

Vendors Should Explain Both Strengths and Limitations

Every AI tool has limits.Vendors who cannot articulate those limits should not be trusted.

Expect vendors to be transparent about:

• Where their AI performs well
• Which workflows does it support reliably?
• Which practice areas benefit most
• Where the technology may struggle
• How their system handles unusual documents
• The boundaries of the model’s reasoning
• Security considerations
• Integration challenges

Honesty from vendors reduces risk.Hype creates unrealistic expectations that undermine trust.

Your team needs clarity on:

• What the AI should be used for
• What it should not be used for
• How much supervision is required
• Which edge cases require human intervention

A vendor who speaks candidly about limitations is a vendor who understands the legal profession.

Ask Vendors to Identify Risks, Challenges, and Usage Modes

AI workflows interact deeply with legal processes, and every tool behaves differently depending on how users approach it. A responsible vendor must identify:

Risks

• Incorrect extraction
• Misinterpretation in complex matters
• Weaknesses in specific document types
• Over-reliance by junior staff
• Data security exposures

Challenges

• User onboarding
• Workflow alignment
• Role-specific training
• Practice-area differences
• Scaling across teams
• Managing feedback at volume

Usage Modes

How partners use the toolHow paralegals use the toolHow associates use the toolHow support teams use the toolHow the product behaves under different workloads

Without this clarity, firms risk inconsistent adoption and uneven outcomes.

Your vendor should be proactive in showing:

• Where the tool excels
• Where care is needed
• Which workflows require tight supervision
• How to onboard each team type
• What risks need continuous monitoring

Anything less puts your practice at unnecessary risk.

Closing Perspective: Hold Vendors to a Higher Standard

Legal innovation leaders don’t need more hype. They need clarity, structure, and accountability.

The firms that succeed at adopting AI tools are the ones that:

• Ask rigorous, practical questions
• Demand role-specific training
• Expect frequent updates
• Require transparent support
• Structure their pilots
• Define success early
• Push vendors to explain limits.
• Identify risks ahead of time.

Strong vendors welcome these questions. Weak vendors avoid them.

The most innovative firms choose partners, not products, because AI is a long-term commitment requiring collaboration at every stage. When your vendor supports you with honesty, live guidance, structured onboarding, and transparent expectations, your firm can confidently and sustainably adopt AI.

If you want a vendor relationship built on clarity rather than hype, Mary Technology is here to help.

Book a demo and sign-up to Mary Technology today.