The Paradox of Underutilized Corporate Solutions in the Legal Sector

 

The Paradox of Underutilized Corporate Solutions in the Legal Sector

Corporate organizations, including law firms and corporate legal departments, routinely make significant investments in software solutions such as case management systems, electronic discovery platforms, and contract lifecycle management tools. These acquisitions are made with the expectation of streamlining operations and enhancing efficiency. However, a pervasive challenge is the consistent failure of these entities to fully harness the inherent capabilities of their purchased solutions. This underutilization stems from several interconnected factors:

• Insufficient Training and Expertise: Employees frequently lack adequate training to leverage the comprehensive functionalities of complex software. For instance, a contract lifecycle management platform like DocuSign CLM or Icertis may offer sophisticated features such as AI driven analytics, clause libraries, and automated workflows. Nevertheless, legal teams might restrict their usage to basic electronic signatures due to an unfamiliarity with these advanced functionalities.

• Siloed Operational Structures: Departments often operate in isolation, leading to fragmented adoption of integrated platforms. A legal team might exclusively use a single module of a platform, for example, document storage within Relativity for electronic discovery, while overlooking its valuable analytics or predictive coding capabilities which could yield substantial time savings.

• Resistance to Procedural Change: Legal professionals, accustomed to established workflows, may exhibit resistance to adopting new features that necessitate a fundamental rethinking of existing processes. This phenomenon is particularly pronounced in plaintiff based firms, where time constraints and contingency based billing arrangements amplify the pressure to adhere to familiar methodologies.

• Suboptimal Implementation Strategies: Organizations occasionally rush the implementation process without adequately aligning a tool's capabilities with their specific operational requirements. This approach frequently results in unutilized features. An AI powered legal research tool like Westlaw Edge, for example, might be used solely for basic searches, completely disregarding its predictive analytics for case outcomes.

Consequently, organizations often resort to acquiring supplemental third party solutions to address perceived functional gaps, even when their existing tools inherently possess the capacity to fulfill these needs. This practice incurs increased costs, introduces integration complexities, and elevates potential security risks, a concern of paramount importance within legal contexts where data privacy and attorney client privilege are sacrosanct.

The Legal Industry Context

Within the legal industry, this phenomenon is particularly acute, driven by the intricate nature of legal workflows and the high stakes associated with compliance and confidentiality. Consider these specific examples:

• Electronic Discovery Platforms: Tools such as Relativity or Logikcull provide robust AI capabilities for document review, including predictive coding and sentiment analysis. Despite these advanced features, many firms utilize these platforms only for basic document storage or keyword searches, thereby foregoing significant time saving AI functionalities that could particularly benefit plaintiff firms operating on contingency fees.

• Contract Management Systems: Platforms like Conga or SpringCM facilitate end to end contract management, encompassing AI driven risk analysis and clause extraction. Yet, legal teams frequently underutilize these features, opting instead for additional tools such as Kira Systems for contract analysis, leading to unnecessary expenditure.

• Legal Research Tools: Solutions like LexisNexis or Bloomberg Law incorporate advanced AI for case law analysis and litigation forecasting. Firms failing to adequately train staff on these features may subsequently purchase additional analytics tools, resulting in duplicated functionality.

This pervasive inefficiency carries substantial implications for smaller plaintiff based firms. Time savings accrued from fully leveraging existing tools could directly enhance their capacity to manage a greater volume of cases without incurring additional overhead. Instead, these firms may invest in external tools to remedy inefficiencies that their current solutions could resolve through proper utilization.

Empirical Evidence Supporting the Phenomenon

Empirical evidence substantiating the underutilization of purchased software and the redundant adoption of third party solutions is found across studies in organizational management, technology adoption, and legal technology. The following key findings collectively support this pervasive phenomenon:

Technology Adoption Studies:

• A 2019 study published in the Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Sourcing by David et al. revealed that organizations frequently fail to fully leverage outsourced technology solutions due to inadequate training and substandard change management practices. This oversight often necessitates the acquisition of supplementary tools to address deficiencies that existing solutions, if properly implemented, could resolve.

• A 2021 study in the International Journal of Innovation Management underscored that firms possessing high absorptive capacity, defined as the ability to integrate and utilize new technologies, achieve superior innovation outcomes. Conversely, firms with low absorptive capacity tend to underutilize their current tools and seek external solutions, thereby increasing costs and complexity.

Legal Technology Specific Evidence:

• A 2023 report by the International Legal Technology Association (ILTA) observed that law firms frequently underutilize electronic discovery platforms like Relativity, often using only 20 to 30 percent of available features. This limited adoption is attributed to a lack of training or resistance to AI driven workflows. Consequently, firms often make additional investments in specialized tools for tasks such as predictive coding, functionalities already embedded within their existing platforms.

• A 2022 study by Legaltech News surveyed corporate legal departments, revealing that 65 percent of respondents admitted to purchasing redundant software because they were unaware of the full capabilities of their existing tools. This trend was particularly evident for AI based contract analysis tools, where firms acquired third party solutions like Seal Software despite possessing similar functionality within their contract lifecycle management systems.

General Enterprise Software Trends:

• A 2020 Gartner report on enterprise software adoption indicated that organizations typically utilize only 40 to 50 percent of the features in complex software suites, including Enterprise Resource Planning or Customer Relationship Management systems. This underutilization is primarily due to insufficient training and poor alignment with business processes, a trend that extends to legal technology given similar software complexity.

• A 2024 study in Economic Analysis and Policy, examining digital transformation in Chinese firms, found that smaller organizations achieve greater efficiency gains from digital tools when fully implemented. In contrast, larger firms often fail to optimize their digital investments due to bureaucratic inertia, leading to redundant third party tool adoption.

Third Party Risk Management Context:

• A 2025 guide by UpGuard on Third Party Risk Management noted that organizations often introduce additional third party tools to address perceived security or compliance gaps. This practice inadvertently increases risk exposure due to inherent integration challenges. Such a scenario is particularly relevant in legal contexts, where the addition of unvetted third party tools can jeopardize data privacy and attorney client privilege.

Collectively, these studies affirm that underutilization represents a widespread issue driven by inadequate training, suboptimal implementation, and organizational resistance, culminating in redundant third party solutions that escalate both costs and risks.

Implications for Legal Professionals

For legal professionals, particularly those in plaintiff based firms, the underutilization of existing solutions represents a significant missed opportunity to maximize operational efficiency. Given that these firms frequently operate on contingency fees, fully leveraging tools like AI powered electronic discovery or contract analysis can substantially reduce the time spent on repetitive tasks, allowing greater focus on case strategy and client outcomes. However, the introduction of third party tools carries considerable risks:

• Data Privacy Risks: Incorporating third party solutions without meticulous vetting can lead to data breaches, violating critical regulations such as the General Data Protection Regulation or the California Consumer Privacy Act. For example, using an external AI tool for document review without ensuring stringent data isolation could inadvertently expose sensitive client information.

• Attorney Client Privilege: The improper use of third party AI tools, such as inputting privileged communications into unsecured platforms, risks waiving attorney client privilege. Legal teams must ensure that AI tools are configured to rigorously maintain confidentiality.

• Copyright Concerns: Certain third party AI tools may be trained on copyrighted legal texts, raising significant ethical and legal concerns regarding intellectual property. Firms must diligently verify the training data sources of AI solutions to avoid potential infringement.

• Hallucination Risks: AI generated outputs must undergo rigorous validation to prevent errors or fabrications, which could critically undermine case integrity. For instance, an AI tool misinterpreting a contract clause due to hallucination could lead to flawed legal strategies and adverse legal outcomes.

To effectively address these multifaceted challenges, legal professionals should prioritize investment in comprehensive training, meticulously align software capabilities with established workflows, and implement robust validation processes to ensure that AI outputs are both accurate and compliant.

Conclusion

Large corporate organizations, including legal teams, frequently fall short in fully utilizing their purchased software solutions due to factors such as inadequate training, fragmented operations, and inherent resistance to change. This pervasive issue often compels the adoption of redundant third party tools, leading to increased costs and heightened risks, including data breaches or waivers of privilege. Empirical evidence from technology adoption studies, legal technology reports, and broader enterprise software trends unequivocally confirms this phenomenon, underscoring the critical need for enhanced training and strategic implementation methodologies. For plaintiff based firms, in particular, fully leveraging existing AI tools presents a direct pathway to improved efficiency, significant time savings, and superior case outcomes without the necessity of acquiring additional solutions. By proactively addressing underutilization and mitigating associated risks through rigorous validation and unwavering compliance, legal professionals can optimize the value of their technology investments and proactively thrive in the AI driven legal landscape.

Is your organization making the most of what it already pays for?