Avoiding Vendor Lock-In with Legal AI Tools

Most firms do not want “AI” in the abstract. They want tools that help with real work — without locking them into one vendor, one model or one pricing structure for the next decade.

The risk is that, in the rush to adopt legal AI, you:

commit key workflows to proprietary tools you cannot later unwind;
save everything in formats that do not travel well; or
build processes that only work with one vendor’s way of doing things.

This article sets out a practical approach to avoiding vendor lock-in when adopting legal AI tools, especially for UK firms that already have case management, DMS and Microsoft 365 in place.

1. Separate “what we do” from “who we buy from”

The first step is to write down — in plain language — the capabilities you care about, for example:

summarising email threads for supervision;
drafting first-pass client updates;
building and maintaining matter chronologies;
suggesting time entries from documents and emails;
extracting tasks and deadlines from correspondence.

For each capability, ask:

What is the input? (emails, documents, structured data in the CMS)
What is the output? (note, draft, task, time entry)
Where should the output live? (the matter file, not a separate tool)

Once you are clear on “what we do”, vendors become replaceable components. They provide implementations of capabilities, not your firm’s underlying way of working.

2. Keep your system of record close to home

To avoid lock-in, decide what will be your system of record for:

matters;
documents;
time entries;
tasks and deadlines;
AI logs and outputs.

Usually, this will be:

your case management system for matters, tasks and time; and
your DMS for documents.

AI tools should work with these systems, not instead of them. That means:

AI-generated notes, drafts and time suggestions are saved into your own databases;
you can export that data in usable formats (for example, database exports, standard file formats);
you are not reliant on a vendor-hosted “AI workspace” as the only place where work is visible.

If a tool insists that all meaningful work must sit in its own silo, treat that as a lock-in warning.

3. Prefer open formats and documented APIs

Lock-in often hides in details like file formats and integration options.

Questions to ask vendors:

“Can we export our data — including AI outputs and logs — in open formats (for example, JSON, CSV, standard document files)?”
“Do you have documented APIs for creating and retrieving AI-assisted notes, tasks and time entries?”
“If we stopped using your AI features, could we keep using the core case management or DMS parts on their own?”

You do not need everything to be open source. But you do want:

standard interfaces where possible; and
a clear path to move your data elsewhere if you choose to.

4. Treat models as replaceable engines

Under the bonnet, most AI features call large language models (LLMs). To avoid lock-in at this layer, aim for an architecture where:

workflows (for example, “summarise this email thread using prompt X”) are defined at the application level;
the specific model (Provider A, Provider B, on-prem, cloud) can be swapped with minimal change;
you are not tied to a proprietary prompt language or template that only one vendor understands.

In practice, this means asking questions like:

“If we wanted to switch the underlying model in future, how much work would that be?”
“Are prompts stored in a way we can export and adapt?”
“Do you support more than one model provider?”

You may not switch models often. The point is to keep the option alive.

5. Keep firm-owned prompts and patterns

Over time, your firm will develop:

prompts that work particularly well for your practice areas;
patterns for supervision and logging;
standard AI-assisted workflows (for example, “supervision note from email + attendance note”).

Treat these as firm assets, not vendor property. Make sure you can:

export your prompt libraries and templates;
store them in your own knowledge systems (as well as in the vendor’s UI);
reuse them if you change AI providers or case management systems in future.

That way, you are investing in your own know-how, not somebody else’s walled garden.

6. Watch out for pricing traps

Lock-in is not just technical; it is also commercial. Be wary of:

low entry prices followed by steep usage-based increases once you rely on the tool;
separate licence tiers that effectively force you to buy AI features for everyone, even if only a few use them deeply;
contracts that make it hard to reduce usage or step down features over time.

Safer patterns include:

predictable per-seat pricing for core AI workflows;
the ability to restrict high-cost features to limited users;
clear data export rights on termination.

Your goal is to keep the option to walk away economically realistic, even if you do not plan to use it.

7. Document your “AI stack” in plain English

One practical way to resist lock-in is to maintain a simple, living description of your firm’s AI set-up that answers:

What tools do we use?
For which workflows?
Where does data live?
How would we replace each component if we had to?

This “AI stack” document:

helps partners understand risk and dependency;
gives DPOs and COLPs a clear picture of where obligations sit;
makes it easier to onboard new tools or retire old ones.

Vendors come and go. Your understanding of your own architecture should not.

Where OrdoLux fits

OrdoLux is being built with modularity and choice in mind:

the system of record for matters, tasks, time and AI logs is OrdoLux itself, backed by open, exportable data structures;
AI features are tied to workflows (summaries, chronologies, time capture, task extraction), not to a single external model;
prompts and patterns are treated as firm-level assets that can be exported and adapted;
the overall design assumes that firms may want to evolve their AI stack over time.

The aim is not to trap you in one particular model or provider, but to give you a stable place for your work, with AI as a replaceable engine behind it.

This article is general information for practitioners — not legal advice, procurement advice or specific guidance on any individual vendor contract.

Looking for legal case management software?

OrdoLux is legal case management software for UK solicitors, designed to make matter management, documents, time recording and AI assistance feel like one joined-up system. Learn more on the OrdoLux website.