In December, we hosted Future Contracts London. 

I had the opportunity to meet with customers, partners, and legal experts from across Europe and beyond. One resounding theme came up again and again: how difficult vendor selection has become at a time when so many viable competitors have entered the Legal AI market.

This wasn’t frustration with the quality of the tools. 

In many cases, the opposite was true. Products are improving quickly. Demos are polished. Feature sets are broad. Roadmaps are ambitious.

Too Many Okay Options

We’re in a moment where AI-powered legal tools are launching at a staggering pace.

From the buyer’s perspective, several things are happening at once:
‍

  • Feature sets converge quickly
  • Demos often look remarkably similar
  • Roadmaps shift every quarter

The result isn't a lack of interest. It’s hesitation. Teams know they need to move forward, but worry about choosing the wrong partner in a market that’s still finding its shape. Vendor FOMO is real. 

You’re Not Buying What Exists Today

One of the clearest insights from conversations in London was this:

You’re not really buying the product as it exists today. You’re buying the team and the business behind it.

In a fast-moving Legal AI market, that reframes how vendor selection should work. 

Capital Helps—But It’s Not a Shortcut

Funding came up often at Future Contracts London, usually as a proxy for confidence. And sometimes that’s fair. Capital can accelerate execution and attract talent.

But it was equally clear that capital alone isn’t a reliable signal of long-term success. 

See Robin AI’s recent collapse. 

Capital can amplify a strong strategy. It can’t replace one.

The strongest buyers weren’t asking who raised the most. They were asking who is deeply committed to legal tech, legal operations, and Legal AI for the long term.

The Bigger Risk: Waiting Too Long

Another adjacent theme emerged in London. 

Some teams have been evaluating tools without making a decision. Not because they’re apathetic, but because they’re cautious in a market that’s changing quickly.

That, too, is a risk.

The answer isn’t endless evaluation. It's a thoughtful commitment.

A Practical Buying Approach

A consistent theme across the most productive conversations was a pragmatic one:
‍

  • Run a focused, time-boxed trial
  • Use real use cases, real users, and real workflows
  • Commit for a year
  • Drive adoption intentionally
  • Measure actual usage and outcomes
  • Survey users

If usage is strong and outcomes improve, double down.

If not, switch and try again. And set that expectation with leadership. 

Why This Works Now

This approach works particularly well today because AI-native Legal AI tools are fundamentally different from legacy Legal Tech. 

Traditional Legal Tech came with heavy implementations, long contracts, and significant sunk costs. Walking away was painful.

The new generation of AI-native tools is faster to deploy, lighter to integrate, and easier to move away from if needed. That changes the risk profile entirely.

You’re no longer making a five-year bet. You’re making a one-year learning investment.

Momentum Beats Perfection

The teams that stood out most in London weren’t the ones with perfect certainty or flawless tech stacks.

They were the ones who had picked a direction, partnered closely with a vendor, learned quickly, and weren’t afraid to adjust.

In a market moving this fast, progress matters more than perfection.

Pick thoughtfully.
Partner intentionally.
Commit long enough to learn.

And if it doesn’t work—try again.

Closing Thought

As these conversations made clear, vendor selection in Legal AI ultimately comes down to confidence in the people behind the product.

Features will change. Interfaces will evolve. Roadmaps will shift. What endures is whether a team has the judgment and commitment to keep building as the market moves.

‍

Back to all posts