A renewal notice lands in the executive director’s inbox: $18,000 for a litigation collaboration platform.
She pauses. Didn’t the firm buy one of those just last year?
A few emails later, the answer emerges: yes, but this one was purchased separately by a practice group. IT was not involved. Some attorneys use one platform, others use another and client documents now live in both. What looked like a routine renewal has exposed a larger problem. Cancel too quickly and the firm could disrupt active work. Renew automatically and it spends another year supporting two overlapping tools.
This is how tool sprawl takes hold. One team has an immediate need, finds a solution and moves forward without a full view of what the firm already owns or what the new application will require. The subscription fee is easy to see. The costs of integration, training, support, governance and eventual replacement are not.
Reasonable purchases can create expensive overlap
The second platform may not have been a careless purchase. The team may have faced a tight deadline, a demanding client or a matter that required features the existing system did not provide. Waiting through a firmwide review would have slowed their work, so the practice group solved the problem in front of it.
That pattern repeats across law firms. A partner adds an e-signature tool because the current process feels cumbersome. A department adopts a new intake application. A new system goes live, but the old one remains because several matters still depend on it.
The ABA’s 2024 Practice Management TechReport suggests that some firms may be choosing individual applications from multiple vendors rather than investing in a broader practice management platform. That can be sensible when a specialized tool supports a legal workflow better than a general system. The trouble begins when the firm cannot explain what the tool replaces, who owns it or how it fits with existing systems.
The invoice captures only part of the expense. Finance sees the subscription, IT sees the support burden and users feel the extra steps.
The cost eventually appears in the work
Tool sprawl becomes visible when routine work requires too many decisions. A document is saved in the document management system, shared through another platform and discussed in Teams. Matter details entered during intake must be typed again elsewhere. Different groups develop different methods for the same task.
The ABA’s Technology and Training TechReport found that technology-related problems sometimes hurt productivity for 47% of respondents. Among respondents from firms with 10 to 49 attorneys, 56% said those problems affected productivity often or sometimes. Tool sprawl is not the only cause, but unclear workflows, weak integrations and inconsistent support can add to that friction.
A larger technology stack can work well when every tool has a clear role. The cost grows when users do not know which system is authoritative, information must be maintained in several places, or no one owns the workflow.
Turn the next renewal into a decision
To get ahead of the curve, begin with tools scheduled to renew in the next six months and begin before the cancellation notice deadline rather than when the invoice arrives.
For each tool, choose a deliberate path:
- Retain: The tool serves a distinct need and justifies its cost and operating burden.
- Optimize: Keep it, but reduce licenses, remove unused modules or improve adoption.
- Consolidate: Move the workflow into an existing platform and retire the overlap.
- Replace or retire: The tool no longer provides enough value or creates too much friction, risk or cost.
IBM’s application portfolio framework recommends reviewing one platform, module or workflow rather than overhauling the entire environment at once. It also calls for an explicit decision to optimize, consolidate, replace or intentionally keep the system.
Usage should inform that decision, but not determine it. A platform may only have a few users yet support a major client or matter. A heavily used tool may still duplicate work or create records management problems. Consider who depends on it, what value it provides, what it would take to leave and whether the firm is paying for more than it needs.
Understand the dependencies before deciding
Before canceling, consolidating or replacing a tool, the firm needs a clear picture of what sits behind it:
- Contract terms: Renewal date, cancellation window, pricing changes and data-export fees.
- Workflow dependencies: Matters, clients, integrations and automations that rely on the tool.
- Information and records: What the platform holds, which repository is authoritative and whether the complete file can be exported.
- Ownership: The business sponsor, technology owner and final decision-maker.
- Exit requirements: Migration, communication, training, archiving and vendor coordination.
This is where duplicate platforms become more than a licensing problem. For example, client documents may live in both, while only one connects properly to the document management system. Ending either contract without understanding active matters, retention needs and export options could cost more than another renewal.
The review should match the stakes. A low-risk administrative tool may need only a business owner and IT review. A platform that accesses client email, matter documents or billing data may also require records, security, privacy or risk input. Microsoft’s cloud application guidance emphasizes ongoing visibility into which applications are used, how they access sensitive data and whether they are sanctioned.
Clear decision rights matter, too. Shared input without a named decision-maker is how a questionable application reaches its seventh automatic renewal. Firms can begin by documenting who owns technology decisions before the next contract deadline.
AI is making overlap harder to spot
AI adds another wrinkle because similar capabilities may appear inside Microsoft 365, legal research platforms, document systems and standalone products. A firm may already be paying for drafting, summarization or document review in several places without seeing the overlap.
During renewal, evaluate capabilities and paid modules, not only product names. Determine which platform is approved for each use, what information it can access and whether attorneys understand where it belongs in the workflow.
Fewer tools is not the goal
The healthiest law firm technology environment is not necessarily the one with the fewest applications. Specialized products may earn their place because they support a client requirement, a practice-specific workflow or a capability the firm cannot replace easily.
Each application should have a clear purpose, an accountable owner and a defined relationship to the firm’s systems and information. When no one can explain why a tool exists, what it holds or what would happen if it disappeared, the firm is no longer managing it. It is simply continuing to pay for it.
Tool sprawl is one form of the broader technology debt that develops when governance and standardization do not keep pace. The renewal cycle gives firms a practical opportunity to reduce that debt without disrupting the entire environment.
Before approving the next contract, look beyond the invoice. Decide whether the tool should be retained, optimized, consolidated or retired, then document who owns the decision and what must happen next. The answer will not always be cancellation, but it should always be deliberate.
If your firm needs an outside perspective on how its applications, vendors and workflows fit together, talk with Afinety. We can help you identify overlap, clarify ownership and make technology decisions with a better view of the full environment.