GUIDE
When not to buy a legal AI tool
Cases where the honest answer is to wait, and the facts in a record that point to them.
Updated September 20, 2026
When the vendor publishes nothing on client data
A firm that cannot get a written answer on confidentiality, training, and data location is being asked to take a position it cannot evidence. Where a record says Not stated across those fields, that is the situation to resolve before buying rather than after.
Not stated is not a finding against the vendor. It means the checked source did not contain the statement, and the next step is to ask for it in writing.
When the workflow is not yet defined
A tool bought before the firm knows which task it is meant to absorb tends to become an unused subscription. The task hubs exist to make that question concrete: which job, done by whom, currently taking how long.
If that sentence cannot be finished, the useful next step is defining the workflow rather than evaluating products.
When the review step has no owner
Every output from these tools needs a person who reviews it before it leaves the firm. If nobody owns that step, the tool adds a review burden without removing one.
This is a workflow fact rather than a product fact, and no record can capture it. It is the first thing to settle internally.
When the decision turns on a fact the record does not hold
Sometimes the records will not separate two products, because the vendors publish the same facts. That is a real result, and it means the decision turns on something outside the record, such as how the product behaves in daily use.
In that case a short trial with written questions is the honest next step, and the questions to ask before buying become the deciding material.