Buyers Say Legal Tech, ALSPs Losing Business by Not Understanding Their Problems
Legal tech and alternative legal service buyers want to know how a solution will solve their business's challenges. But a Baretz+Brunelle survey found that in today's market, that valuable information is hard to come by.
August 26, 2019 at 11:30 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Legal Tech News
Legal technology and alternative legal service providers (ALSPs) are largely missing the mark in explaining how their products and services solves problems, according to a new report by Baretz+Brunelle who offers communication and PR services to legal technology companies.
Released last week, "Feel Their Pain: The 2019 Selling Legal Tech Report," which surveyed 100 corporate legal department senior executives and Am Law 100 and 200 law firms, found that only 34% of respondents agree that legal tech or ALSPs understand their business challenges.
What's more, 46% of respondents also said that "uncertainty about whether the product would solve our problems" was the first or second largest reason why they didn't buy a product.
Still, around 90% indicated they are interested in knowing how tech products can solve their problems and said they are more likely to buy from a legal tech or alternative legal service provider that understands their business.
Baretz+Brunelle partner Kenneth Gary said the results weren't surprising, and they reflect how many legal tech companies are going to market without a clear understanding of the customer's needs. (Disclaimer: Gary previously worked at ALM Media.)
"It confirmed there is market confusion," Gary said. "A lot of it is legal tech companies aren't facing the pain of their customers."
Although 30% of respondents said they resent frequent legal tech and ALSP sales contact and hold it against sellers, Gary cautioned that it's the quality and not quantity of the pitches that greatly sour interactions.
"They need to tell a compelling story," he said. "They need to be able to articulate how and why their solutions can instantly help and empathize with their clients they are selling to." These pitches should include how the product makes the business more efficient and "align themselves as a partner and not as a full-on service," Gary added.
However, customers say legal tech and ALSPs' sales communications focus primarily on product features, according to the survey. Buyers do see solving their challenges as the second most-common message in legal tech and ALSP marketing, the survey found.
As legal tech companies and service providers continue to struggle to create and convey business solutions, a new era of legal operations managers is emerging in the legal industry. Instead of siting idly by, legal tech and ALSPs can partner with legal operation managers to improve efficiency and cost-savings, Gary said. But first, legal tech and service providers will need to have a product that addresses those problems.
"Successful legal service providers tell compelling stories," he explained. "They understand the problems their customers are facing. I think there needs to be adjustments: Some are doing a great job, but by and large many are not."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All12-Partner Team 'Surprises' Atlanta Firm’s Leaders With Exit to Launch New Reed Smith Office
4 minute readMorgan Lewis Shutters Shenzhen Office Less Than Two Years After Launch
After Breakaway From FisherBroyles, Pierson Ferdinand Bills $75M in First Year
5 minute readJudge Rejects Walgreens' Contractual Dispute Against Founder's Family Member
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1South Florida Attorney Charged With Aggravated Battery After Incident in Prime Rib Line
- 2'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 3Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 4‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 5State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250