It usually starts with a reasonable question during budget season: “Do we really need all this software?”
The legal administrator has a spreadsheet full of renewals. IT has a list of applications to support. Finance would like to know why the firm is paying for three tools that appear to do the same thing.
Then someone suggests eliminating one of them.
That’s when the litigation team explains why it can’t work without it. The corporate group has a different reason for keeping theirs. And the document management system that looks suspiciously like an expensive version of file storage? It turns out there’s quite a bit more going on behind the scenes.
Suddenly, cutting software isn’t quite as straightforward as cutting subscriptions.
For mid-sized law firms, the challenge is determining which technology creates unnecessary work and which systems earn their place by supporting legal workflows. The answer requires a more deliberate approach to standardization, consolidation and specialization.
Standardize where consistency matters
Some technology works better when everyone operates under common standards.
Identity and access management are good examples. Attorneys may need different applications, but that doesn’t mean each application should require a separate authentication process or manual account management. Centralized identity can make access easier to manage while supporting specialized tools.
The same principle applies to device management, baseline security controls, backup and recovery, core productivity tools and common collaboration platforms.
The 2026 ILTA Technology Survey polled more than 500 law firms and found growing standardization around Microsoft infrastructure. Technology cost and security compliance/risk management tied as respondents’ leading technology concerns, each selected by 38%.
For mid-sized firms with limited IT resources, common standards can reduce administrative work and make security policies easier to apply consistently.
That doesn’t require giving every employee identical technology. A litigation paralegal and a finance manager can have different applications while operating under the same device, access and security standards. The same thinking applies when deciding whether everyone in a law firm still needs the same desktop.
Consolidate duplication, not capability
Most firms have applications worth questioning. Perhaps two departments use different file-sharing services, or several collaboration tools have survived long after their original purpose disappeared.
Those are reasonable consolidation candidates, but similar features don’t always mean two systems are interchangeable.
Consider SharePoint and a legal document management system (DMS). Both store documents, but a DMS may also manage matter-centric filing, email correspondence, document versions, access permissions and ethical walls. Those capabilities may be central to how the firm handles client work.
Before replacing an application, test the proposed alternative against an actual workflow. Can attorneys complete the same work without additional steps? Will information remain properly organized and accessible? What happens to established approvals, permissions and integrations?
A lower software bill loses some appeal if employees must compensate with spreadsheets, manual entry or documents downloaded and reuploaded between systems.
Those workarounds can also contribute to technology debt in law firms, where systems that once solved individual problems become increasingly difficult to maintain together.
There’s also a cost to the change itself. The 2026 Wolters Kluwer Future Ready Lawyer report found that 39% of surveyed legal professionals cited inadequate training as a barrier to further AI implementation, while 35% cited resistance to change. Although those findings concern AI, they illustrate why adoption deserves attention when evaluating replacements.
Software included in an existing license isn’t necessarily a bargain if the firm must invest heavily to make it work.
Where specialization still earns its place
Specialized applications shouldn’t get a free pass simply because they’ve always been there. They should provide capabilities that justify their additional licensing, support, training and governance requirements.
Document management is a strong example. Legal DMS platforms can support matter-centric organization, email filing, version control and detailed access governance. Those features can be difficult to reproduce through general-purpose storage without changing how attorneys work.
The same reasoning applies to other legal workflows.
Conflicts and new-business intake may require relationships among clients, matters, related parties and previous decisions that a general approval tool doesn’t adequately capture. Legal research platforms provide specialized content, citator systems and research workflows that differ from general-purpose AI tools.
Litigation offers a more nuanced example. Microsoft Purview supports certain preservation and e-discovery functions within Microsoft 365. More demanding matters may require dedicated review, analytics or production capabilities. The appropriate choice depends on the firm’s actual work, not an assumption that every firm needs a separate platform.
Specialized billing or practice applications can also earn their place when they support complex client requirements or workflows that a broader system handles poorly.
Importantly, value isn’t always proportional to the number of users. An application used by a dozen people for a critical practice-specific process may be worth keeping, even when a broadly used but redundant collaboration tool isn’t.
The overlooked option: Integrate instead of replace
Technology reviews often present two choices: Keep an application or eliminate it. Sometimes the better answer is to keep the application and address the complexity surrounding it.
A DMS might serve attorneys well but still create unnecessary administrative work because it uses separate credentials, doesn’t share matter information with other systems or requires manual provisioning. Replacing it could sacrifice valuable functionality. Better integration might solve the underlying problem.
For example, iManage’s Microsoft 365 integrations allow firms to work with specialized document-management capabilities through familiar Microsoft applications. NetDocuments also supports integration with Microsoft 365.
The principle extends beyond document management. Specialized applications can often operate under centralized identity, shared security standards and clearer data-management practices.
Integration still requires maintenance and accountability. But for a mid-sized firm, it may be a more practical investment than replacing a functioning legal application and retraining everyone who uses it. The objective is to keep the specialized capability without making attorneys and IT manage unnecessary differences between systems.
Four decisions for your next technology review
Instead of dividing applications into “keep” and “eliminate,” consider four possible outcomes:
| DECISION | WHEN IT MAKES SENSE |
| Standardize | Consistency creates the greatest value, as with identity, devices and baseline security. |
| Consolidate | Multiple applications perform substantially overlapping functions without enough distinctive value. |
| Integrate | A specialized application is valuable but creates avoidable friction with other systems. |
| Retain specialized | A legal or practice-specific workflow cannot move to a general platform without meaningful compromise. |
Start with a few practical questions:
- What does this application do that our existing platforms cannot?
- Would we deliberately purchase it again today?
- What manual work or lost functionality would result from removing it?
- Could integration solve the problem without replacement?
- What does it cost to operate, including licensing, support, security, training and vendor coordination?
The answers may reveal opportunities to eliminate duplication, improve integration or retain a system whose value isn’t obvious from a subscription report.
A simpler environment should make work easier
The goal isn’t to win a contest for the fewest software subscriptions. It’s to give attorneys and staff reliable access to the tools they need without unnecessary handoffs, inconsistent controls or confusing repositories.
Before the next renewal cycle, review applications alongside the workflows they support. Standardize where consistency improves operations, consolidate where capabilities genuinely overlap and preserve specialization where legal work warrants it.
Afinety works with law firms to evaluate how infrastructure, Microsoft 365, security and specialized legal applications fit together. If your firm is reconsidering its technology stack, start a conversation with Afinety about where to simplify and where the right specialized tools deserve to stay.