Why Tech Procurement Is the Silent Killer of Legal Tech Success

Opening Hook

Legal tech failure doesn’t happen in the boardroom demo. It doesn’t happen when the vendor shows you their slick dashboard and promises “seamless integration.” It happens months earlier – in the procurement process – when the wrong people make the wrong decisions for the wrong reasons.

Here’s the truth: procurement is the single biggest source of legal tech failure. Not because procurement teams are incompetent, but because they’re often flying blind. They don’t fully understand legal workflows, compliance obligations, or the behavioural realities of adoption. And legal? Legal assumes procurement and IT have it covered. Everyone thinks someone else is watching the wheel. No one is. That’s how projects crash.

The Fall: Where It All Goes Wrong

Let’s break down the anatomy of failure:

◼️Misunderstood Requirements: Procurement or CTO teams make choices without consulting legal. They buy what looks good on paper, not what works in practice. Result? A system that doesn’t fit legal workflows or compliance needs.

◼️The Expertise Gap: Tech experts aren’t legal experts. Legal experts aren’t tech experts. Each side assumes the other knows what matters. Neither does. The blind spots are fatal.

◼️Shiny Object Syndrome: Organisations chase the “latest and greatest” platform – the one with AI bells and blockchain whistles – while ignoring the basics. If your offline process is broken, automating it won’t fix it. It will just make failure faster.

◼️Vendor Overpromising: Vendors sell dreams. “Seamless integration.” “Instant adoption.” “Guaranteed ROI.” Reality? Complex migrations, hidden costs, and months of frustration.

◼️Customer Complacency: Buyers believe technology will solve everything. They ignore fundamentals like process mapping, change management, and stakeholder alignment. Tech doesn’t fix broken governance. It amplifies it.

Case Study 1: The £2 Million Mistake

A global financial institution spent £2 million on a contract lifecycle management (CLM) platform. Procurement led the process. Legal was barely consulted. The vendor promised “plug-and-play” integration. Reality?

◼️No compliance workflows embedded.

◼️Data migration stalled for six months.

◼️Adoption rate after one year: 12%.

The system was eventually abandoned. The root cause? Procurement bought a shiny box without understanding legal’s needs. No one asked: Does this platform reflect how we actually work?

Case Study 2: The AI Mirage

A tech company invested in an AI-powered e-discovery tool. The pitch was irresistible: “Cut review time by 80%.” Procurement signed off. Legal assumed IT had vetted compliance. IT assumed legal had vetted privilege protocols. Neither did. Result?

◼️Privilege breaches during litigation.

◼️Regulatory investigation for GDPR violations.

◼️Vendor contract lacked liability safeguards.

The project didn’t just fail – it created a legal crisis. Why? Because everyone thought someone else was steering the ship.

Deep Insight: Why Procurement Is Ground Zero

Procurement is where the DNA of success is set. If requirements are wrong, everything downstream collapses: configuration, integration, adoption. Procurement decisions lock in vendor capabilities, contractual protections, and cost structures. Get it wrong here, and no amount of project management heroics will save you.

The Myths That Kill Projects

◼️“Tech will fix everything.” No, it won’t. If your offline process is broken, digitising it just makes failure faster.

◼️“The vendor knows best.” Vendors know their product, not your compliance obligations or cultural realities.

◼️“Legal doesn’t need to be involved.” Legal is the primary user and risk owner. Excluding them is insanity.

◼️“One-size-fits-all.” Every legal team is different. Buying generic solutions guarantees misalignment.

The GLS View: Procurement Is a Governance Issue

At GLS, we’ve written extensively on this: procurement is not a shopping exercise – it’s a governance decision. It determines whether your tech investment accelerates transformation or becomes a costly embarrassment. That’s why we advocate:

◼️Joint Ownership: Legal and IT co-own procurement decisions.

◼️Requirements Mapping: Document workflows and compliance needs before vendor engagement.

◼️Vendor Accountability: SLAs, KPIs, and liability clauses baked into contracts.

◼️Reality Checks: Validate vendor promises against real-world scenarios.

◼️Process First, Tech Second: Fix offline processes before automating them.

People Also Ask (PAAs)

1. Why do most legal tech projects fail?

Because procurement decisions are made without understanding legal requirements or adoption realities.

2. What is shiny-object syndrome in legal tech?

The tendency to chase flashy features instead of focusing on core functionality and process alignment.

3. Why must legal be involved in procurement?

Legal owns compliance obligations and workflows – excluding them guarantees misalignment.

4. How do vendors overpromise in legal tech?

By selling unrealistic integration timelines, adoption rates, and ROI projections.

5. Can technology fix broken processes?

No – if it doesn’t work offline, it won’t work online. Tech amplifies process flaws.

6. What safeguards should be in vendor contracts?

SLAs, KPIs, liability clauses, and compliance obligations.

7. Why is joint ownership critical in procurement?

Because tech experts aren’t legal experts, and vice versa. Collaboration closes the gap.

8. What is the cost of poor procurement?

Millions in wasted investment, compliance breaches, and reputational harm.

9. How do you avoid vendor lock-in?

By negotiating flexible contracts and validating integration capabilities upfront.

10. What role does change management play in procurement?

It ensures adoption strategies are embedded from the start, not as an afterthought.

Closing Argument

Tech Procurement is not a back-office function. It is the frontline of legal transformation. Get it wrong, and you don’t just waste money – you create compliance risks, operational chaos, and reputational damage. Get it right, and you unlock agility, efficiency, and strategic credibility.

The question isn’t whether you need a disciplined procurement process. The question is: Can you afford not to?