The land grab is over. The integration phase has begun.

And if you're running a small to mid-market firm, this affects you more than you think.

Why This Matters (Even If You Don't Use These Tools)

Here's the pattern emerging:

The major legal research providers are locking down their data moats. They're vertically integrating. They're trying to become the "one hero company" that handles everything from case research to time tracking to client intake.

Sounds convenient, right?

Maybe. But there's a catch.

When your practice management system, your research tool, and your AI assistant all come from the same vendor, you lose negotiating leverage.

I've spoken with managing partners at firms locked into enterprise contracts with Thomson Reuters. They're paying 40% more than they were three years ago, and switching costs are astronomical because everything is interconnected.

The Three Strategic Moves Happening Right Now

Move 1: The Data Fortress Strategy

Westlaw, Lexis, and now Clio via vLex control the comprehensive case law datasets. These are the three major pools of legal data, and access is increasingly controlled.

Why does this matter? Because every legal AI tool needs training data. Without access to one of these three sources, AI products will always be limited.

Harvey hit this wall. Their "game-changing" Lexis integration? It's basically an API call. Harvey can't see the underlying data, can't train on it, can't enhance it. They're sipping through a straw.

The innovation ceiling for many AI legal tools is now set by whoever controls their data access.

Move 2: The Full-Stack Play

Clio's acquisition of vLex isn't just about research. It's about controlling the entire workflow.

They want to own:

• Client intake and CRM

• Matter management

• Time and billing

• Document management

• Legal research and AI drafting

• Client communication

One platform. One login. One vendor.

For small firms without IT departments, this sounds appealing. For savvy partners, it should raise questions about flexibility and cost.

Move 3: The Specialized Survivors

Not everyone is going full-stack. Some tools are betting on being the best at one specific thing.

AI time tracking tools that passively capture billable hours. Contract analysis tools that do one thing exceptionally well. Client communication platforms that integrate with everything.

These specialized tools are betting that partners want flexibility over convenience.

The Decision Tree for Your Firm

I've been advising firms through this transition, and here's the framework I use:

Go Full-Stack If:

• You have fewer than 20 attorneys

• You don't have dedicated IT staff

• You value simplicity over customization

• You're willing to pay premium prices for integration

• You practice in areas well-served by generic tools

Go Best-of-Breed If:

• You have 20+ attorneys

• You have specific workflow requirements

• You want negotiating leverage with vendors

• You have someone who can manage integrations

• Your practice areas need specialized tools

The Hidden Cost of "Convenience"

Here's what the consolidators won't tell you:

Integrated platforms optimize for their revenue, not your workflow.

Example: If your practice management system also sells AI research tools, which features get built first? The ones that increase research usage (and therefore licensing fees), or the ones that make your attorneys more efficient?

I've seen firms trapped in platforms where basic feature requests take 18+ months to implement because they're not strategic priorities for the vendor.

Meanwhile, specialized tools are shipping weekly updates because they have one job: make that specific workflow exceptional.

What's Coming Next

Based on conversations with VCs, product leaders, and managing partners, here's what I see coming:

2025: The Integration Arms Race

Expect more acquisitions. Thomson Reuters will likely buy or partner with a practice management company. Harvey may form relationships with enterprise-focused platforms. Smaller players will be acquired or shut down.

2026: The Unbundling Begins

Some firms will realize they're paying for integrated features they never use. The best-of-breed tools will get better at integration through APIs. We'll see a counter-movement toward specialized tools.

2027: The AI Talent Crisis

As AI handles more junior work, firms will struggle to develop mid-level talent. Someone will build the training system for lawyers in the AI age. That product will be worth billions.

Three Questions to Ask This Quarter

If you're making technology decisions for your firm, ask yourself:

1. "If I wanted to switch vendors in two years, what would it cost?"

Get the real answer. Include data migration, retraining, workflow disruption, and opportunity cost. If the number scares you, you might be locked in.

2. "What specific workflows are make-or-break for our firm?"

Generic tools serve generic needs well. If you have specialized requirements (complex billing structures, unique matter types, specific client reporting), generic tools will frustrate you.

3. "Who's building features for people like us?"

Enterprise tools build for AmLaw 200. Consumer tools build for solo practitioners. Who's building for sophisticated small to mid-market firms? That's your sweet spot.

The Opportunity

Here's the thing most partners miss:

This consolidation phase is actually creating opportunities.

While the big players integrate and slow down, nimble firms can adopt specialized tools faster. While enterprise clients navigate 18-month procurement cycles, you can implement new AI tools in weeks.

The firms winning in 2025 aren't necessarily using the most expensive tools. They're using the right tools, deployed intelligently, with clear ROI.

I've seen 40-attorney firms with better AI capabilities than AmLaw 100 firms simply because they moved faster and chose better.

The Bottom Line

The legal tech industry is going through the same consolidation phase that happened in marketing tech (now dominated by Adobe, Salesforce, HubSpot) and HR tech (Workday, Oracle, SAP).

Some consolidation is inevitable. Some is healthy.

But consolidation always creates winners and losers among the customers.

The winners will be partners who:

• Understand what they actually need (versus what's being sold)

• Maintain optionality and negotiating leverage

• Move quickly when they spot genuine innovation

• Don't confuse integration with innovation

The losers will be firms that sleep through this phase and wake up in three years locked into expensive platforms that don't quite fit their needs.

Which one will you be?

Want to discuss your firm's legal tech strategy? I'm offering free 30-minute strategy sessions for managing partners at firms with 20-100 attorneys. No sales pitch, just strategic advice. Schedule here.