General Legal Tech Tools vs Point Solutions

At most law firms, the question of legal technology adoption isn't whether to implement AI tools, it's which approach will deliver the most value. As firms navigate an increasingly crowded marketplace, they face a fundamental strategic decision: invest in broad, all-in-one platforms like Harvey and Legora, or build a stack of specialized point solutions like Jurimesh.

"The divide is becoming more pronounced," says Matthias Vandamme, lawyer who has worked extensively with legal technology implementation across different firm sizes. "You have these general platforms promising to be the lawyer's all-purpose assistant, and then you have highly specialized tools that focus on mastering one domain really well."

The choice between breadth and depth has implications far beyond technology procurement, affecting workflow design, training requirements, and long-term competitive positioning.

The Adoption Challenge: Expectations vs. Reality

Before examining the general-versus-point solutions debate, Matthias identifies two fundamental barriers that plague legal tech adoption across all firm sizes. "The first is expectations, and the second is the inherently conservative nature of lawyers in general," he explains.

The expectations problem stems from how legal tech tools market themselves. "Legal tech companies have to promote their products, and they're going to focus on all the strong points while leaving out the weak points," Matthias notes. "That's not surprising, it's a product being sold. But it creates situations where law firms have enormous expectations that can't always be met in practice."

This marketing reality collides with lawyers' fundamental misunderstanding of what AI tools can accomplish. "There's still this feeling among lawyers in general that the legal tech tool is going to replace their work, when it's actually more of an aid to do the work better and more efficiently," Matthias says.

The conservative nature of the legal profession compounds these challenges. "I've thought a lot about why most lawyers are so conservative, and I think it partly comes from how we're trained," Matthias reflects. "Our entire education trains us to constantly look for potential problems and risks," he explains. "The easiest way to avoid risks is often to avoid change, especially when your current method already works. In other words, ‘if it ain't broke, don't fix it’"

The Appeal of General Solutions

General platforms like Harvey and Legora position themselves as comprehensive solutions for modern legal practice, and Matthias sees clear advantages in certain contexts. "Those general solutions work well for low-hanging fruit, tasks where you have large quantities of repetitive work," he explains.

The operational benefits are significant. "If I'm running a full service firm with different departments, I'd prefer to have one tool where I can do everything, even if it's not the absolute best tool available on the market," Matthias says. "Because if I have a separate tool for each department, I need to do compliance for each one, train people for each one, and have someone internally who's constantly managing all of these different systems."

The administrative complexity multiplies quickly. "Usually, you're buying somewhat of an empty box that you need to configure and customize yourself. If I have to do that per department, that's expensive. But if I have one solution where every department can work and there's one or two people in the entire organization who specialize in it, that seems more efficient."

General platforms also offer stability that appeals to larger firms. "The Harvey's of the world are ridiculously expensive, but you have more confidence in them simply because they have the budgets. You know they're not going to disappear from one day to the next," Matthias observes.

The Case for Specialized Solutions

Despite these advantages, Matthias sees point solutions as superior in most scenarios. "In most cases, you're going to get more value for your money with specific tools than with general tools," he argues.

The depth advantage is particularly pronounced for complex work. "Those specific tools are good for when you need to do really qualitative work. That's how I perceive tools like Jurimesh, when you want to do something qualitatively and at scale, it's useful to choose a specialized tool."

Point solutions offer flexibility that general platforms can't match. "The nice thing about smaller tools is that you can play around with them more. They want it more, so to speak, and they'll make concessions faster," Matthias explains. "They'll say, 'We don't have that feature yet, but we'll implement it for you.' With Harvey, you're probably going to have to take what they give you."

The development relationship is fundamentally different. "With smaller tools, you can often speak directly with the founder or the developer who knows the system inside out. You're likely not going to do that with Harvey if you’re a smaller law firm or a solo practitioner, and you're definitely not going to call Microsoft's developer to explain their tool to you."

The Integration Imperative

Regardless of the breadth-versus-depth decision, integration capabilities have become non-negotiable for most firms. "The first thing I look at is: can it integrate with what we currently have?" Matthias says. "If we work with Microsoft, can I integrate it into my Microsoft 365 tools, or is there an easy connection?"

Data sovereignty emerges as a critical concern. "I want to be able to keep my data with me. I don't want to have to copy all my interesting case law, notes, and other materials from our database and place them in someone else's database. I'm not going to give that to some tool without trusting them completely, and even then, I'd prefer a solution I can implement on what I already have," he explains.

The Belgian Advantage

An often-overlooked factor in the point-versus-general debate is geographic proximity and regulatory alignment. "One important advantage we haven't discussed about point solutions is location," Matthias notes. "Many are Belgian or Dutch, and Belgium is doing really well in this space."

The regulatory implications are significant. "When there are issues with other countries, like we've seen multiple times with the United States, and suddenly we can't use tools legally or easily, then you have to look at Belgian or European tools anyway. So why not start with Belgian tools?"

This proximity advantage extends beyond regulatory compliance. "If Belgian tools can also demonstrate reliability, if they have contingency plans for key personnel leaving and can show how they'd migrate your data to another system if necessary, that becomes very interesting."

Practical Guidance for Law Firms

When evaluating legal tech options, Matthias advocates for a systematic approach that starts with fundamental questions. "First, really think about whether you actually need it. What's your concrete use case or problem? What do you want to achieve?" he asks.

"Don't just adopt a tool because you want to have a legal tech tool, or because you want to show you're keeping up with AI. If that's your goal, and that's fine, then put a chatbot on your website. But if you want real business impact, be specific about your objectives."

The evaluation process should be thoroughly commercial. "Look at all the tools on the market, compare pricing, and understand what they offer. If you go with the big tools, you'll probably have to take what they give you. The smaller tools are more willing to adapt to your specific needs."

Matthias emphasizes the importance of direct engagement with tool developers. "You'll likely never find a tool that's perfect for exactly what you need. That's why it's useful to go with smaller providers where you can ask questions and make adjustments to your specific requirements."

The Verdict: Context Determines Choice

Rather than declaring a universal winner, Matthias' analysis points toward a nuanced, context-dependent approach. "If you're looking for a legal tech solution and you have a specific goal in mind, I'd look at a specialized tool to accomplish it," he concludes. "If you're looking for something general, like legal research, rewriting texts, or translation, then I'd go for a general tool."

The decision ultimately comes down to matching tool capabilities with firm needs. "For high-volume, repetitive work, general solutions make sense. For qualitative, complex work that requires deep domain expertise, specialized tools typically deliver better results."

As the legal tech landscape continues to evolve, firms that thoughtfully assess their specific requirements and match them to appropriate solutions, whether general or specialized, will be best positioned to realize meaningful returns on their technology investments.

"The key is being honest about what you're trying to achieve," Matthias says. "Technology should solve real problems, not create new ones."