Key points:
- Law firms risk technological debt by prioritizing quick adoption over long-term planning.
- Poor adoption and duplicate technologies contribute to inefficiencies.
- Experts emphasize creating a long-term roadmap to mitigate risks.
As legal technology continues to evolve, law firms and in-house legal teams face growing risks of technological debt, a concept highlighting the long-term costs of poorly planned tech acquisitions. According to the 2025 Report on the State of the US Legal Market, as reported by Law.com, tech spending in law firms has outpaced inflation for over a decade, potentially leaving firms with underutilized or incompatible systems.
Technological debt often results from a focus on immediate needs rather than integrated, strategic planning. Brett Burney, principal of Burney Consultants, observed that firms frequently adopt tools simply because competitors are using them. “The result is overhead from tools that only a handful of people use, while the rest of the firm doesn’t adopt them,” Burney explained.
Another significant issue stems from poor alignment between technology investments and organizational needs. Brad Blickstein, CEO of the Blickstein Group, noted that the greatest challenge is ensuring adoption and maximizing value. He added that power dynamics within law firms, such as the influence of senior partners, often lead to acquisitions tailored to specific clients or practice groups rather than scalable firm-wide solutions.
The unique structure of law firms compounds these challenges. With multiple power centers and often competing interests, creating a unified technology strategy is difficult. Burney emphasized the importance of a long-term roadmap, saying, “It’s hard to convince leadership to make decisions that may not yield immediate benefits but will pay off in five to ten years.”
Other issues may lie outside the control of firms entirely. Jim Michalowicz, a senior manager at TE Connectivity, shared that implementation delays caused by tech vendors have also contributed to inefficiencies, further exacerbating the problem.
The risks of technological debt are particularly pronounced in larger organizations, where multiple practice groups often demand specialized tools. Smaller firms or midsized practices may find it easier to implement cohesive strategies, but they too must navigate the growing complexities of the legal tech market.
Experts agree that investing time and resources into developing a strategic plan is essential for mitigating risks. As Blickstein pointed out, “With money pouring into legal tech and new products constantly emerging, firms and legal departments must carefully evaluate their tech stacks.”
