Your Favorite Legal Tech Company Hates You

I need to talk about something that’s been bothering me since I started researching the legal tech market: the pricing.

Not in a “things are a bit expensive” way. In a “this is genuinely predatory and everyone has just accepted it” way.

Here’s what a typical mid-size law firm’s tech stack looks like in 2026: iManage or NetDocuments for document management ($30–60/user/month). Clio or PracticePanther for case management ($39–89/user/month or more depending on the tier). Separate billing software. Separate trust accounting. Separate eDiscovery tools when litigation heats up. An email integration that sort of works. A client portal that nobody likes (seriously — it’s universal).

For a 25-lawyer firm with support staff, you’re looking at $8,000–$15,000 a month. For tools that don’t talk to each other. That require separate logins. That store your data in separate silos. That you can’t leave because the migration cost is astronomical and they know it.

The per-seat model is the original sin of legal tech. It doesn’t charge you for value, it charges you for headcount. Hire a new associate? That’ll be another $150/month across your stack. Bring on a paralegal? More money. A temp for a big case? Hope you like per-seat overages.

It’s a business model that punishes growth. And the vendors have figured out that the switching costs are so high — migrating a document management system with 100,000 files and years of metadata is a genuinely miserable experience — that they can raise prices and degrade service and you’ll stay anyway.

I don’t say this as a neutral observer. I’m building a competitor, so I’m obviously biased. But I’m also a practicing attorney who has watched firms I’ve worked with hemorrhage money on tools that haven’t meaningfully improved in a decade. The bias comes from the frustration, not the other way around.

Here’s what I think the market is missing:

• One platform, flat fee. Documents, matters, billing, trust accounting, client portal, eDiscovery — all in one system. $299 to $1699 a month depending on firm size. Not per seat. Not per feature. The whole thing.

• Data portability as a feature, not a hostage negotiation. You should be able to export your entire dataset at any time in standard formats. If I can’t keep you by being better, I don’t deserve to keep you at all.

• Architecture that actually integrates. Not “integrations” where you pay extra to connect two products that should have been one product. Built-together, same-database, shares-the-same-permission-model integration. When you upload a document, it’s immediately searchable, automatically tied to a matter, and accessible to everyone who should see it — because it’s all one system.

Is this ambitious? Absolutely. Am I building it alone with AI tools and a budget that wouldn’t cover one enterprise sales rep’s quota? Also yes. But the infrastructure costs for building software in 2026 are a fraction of what they were five years ago, and that changes the math on what’s possible.

The legal tech incumbents aren’t bad companies run by bad people. They’re mature businesses optimizing for revenue extraction from a captured market. That’s rational. But it creates an opening for someone willing to build something better and charge less for it.

I’m not the only one who sees this. I’m just the one dumb enough to try.

Subscribe now

THE VERDICT

Quick Takes

• If your software vendor makes migration painful on purpose, that’s not a feature. I’ve talked to firms who’ve stayed on terrible platforms for years because the migration estimate was $50K+. That’s a hostage situation, not loyalty. Any product that can only keep customers by making it expensive to leave is telling you something about its value.

• The “best of breed” argument is over. For years, the pitch was “use the best tool for each job and integrate them.” In practice, this means six tools, six logins, six billing cycles, and an IT person whose entire job is keeping the integrations from breaking. All-in-one wins when the “one” is good enough. And “good enough” keeps getting better.

• Bookkeepers think in ledgers, not UIs. Something I learned preparing for a trust accounting demo: when I built documentation showing pretty screenshots of the interface, the firm’s bookkeeper didn’t care. She wanted to know how data flows between accounts. She wanted to see the reconciliation math. The lesson: know your audience. Not everyone evaluates software the same way.

THE CONFESSIONAL

I Priced Batesly Wrong Three Times

• First attempt: $99/month flat. Too cheap. People literally told me they wouldn’t trust legal software that costs less than their Netflix subscription. Pricing communicates value, and I was communicating “side project.”

• Second attempt: Per-seat pricing to match the market. This lasted about 48 hours before I realized I’d become the exact thing I was building against. Hypocrisy speed run.

• Third attempt (current): Tiered flat-fee. $299 for small firms, $599 for mid-size, $999 for larger firms, $1699 for enterprise. Unlimited users at every tier. This feels right.. but I do plan to increase each tier after the Big Launch (early adopters get the lower prices locked-in for life). It’s affordable enough to be a no-brainer upgrade, expensive enough to be taken seriously, and the flat-fee model is a genuine differentiator in a market addicted to per-seat.

• Pricing is strategy. It took me three tries to figure out mine. If you’re building something and you’re agonizing over pricing, just pick something, put it out there, and listen to what people tell you. The market will teach you faster than any spreadsheet model.

Thanks for reading.

The Prompt is the Product

Here’s the thing nobody tells you about vibe coding: the quality of what you build is directly proportional to the quality of your prompts. Not your coding skill. Not your technical knowledge. Your prompts.

I learned this the hard way. Early on, I’d write prompts like: “Build me a document upload feature.” And I’d get something that technically uploaded documents. It would also have no error handling, no file size limits, no virus scanning, no audit logging, and a UI that looked like it was designed by someone who’d never used a computer.

The AI did exactly what I asked. The problem was what I asked.

Now my prompts look completely different. Here’s a real one from last week: “Build a secure document upload flow for a legal document management system. Requirements: presigned S3 upload URLs with 15-minute expiry, file size limit of 100MB, allowed MIME types are PDF, DOCX, XLSX, PNG, and JPG. On upload confirmation, record document metadata in the documents table including SHA256 hash, file size, MIME type, and uploader’s user ID. Write an entry to the audit_log table with action type DOCUMENT_UPLOADED. The upload should be scoped to a specific matter and inherit the matter’s permissions. Show a progress indicator during upload and a success toast on completion. Handle errors gracefully with user-friendly messages.”

Same feature. Completely different result. The difference isn’t that I learned to code — it’s that I learned to think like a product manager.

Here’s what I’ve figured out about writing prompts that produce production-quality code:

Be specific about the outcome, not the implementation. I don’t tell the AI which React hooks to use or how to structure the API call. I tell it what the user should experience and what the system should enforce. “The user drags a file onto the upload zone and sees a progress bar. If the file exceeds 100MB, they see an error before the upload starts.” The AI figures out the how. I own the what and the why.

Name your constraints explicitly. Security requirements. Performance expectations. Accessibility needs. Error states. If you don’t mention it, it won’t exist. AI doesn’t infer security requirements. It doesn’t add audit logging unless you ask. It won’t check permissions unless you tell it to. Every constraint you care about needs to be in the prompt.

Include context about the system. My best prompts start with a few sentences about what Batesly is and what the relevant data model looks like. “Batesly is a multi-tenant legal document management platform. Each document belongs to a matter. Each matter belongs to an organization. Users can only access matters they’re assigned to.” This framing prevents 80% of the bugs I used to get.

Describe the unhappy paths. What happens when the upload fails? When the user’s session expires mid-upload? When two people upload a file with the same name to the same matter? If you only describe the sunny-day scenario, you get sunny-day code. Real software lives in the edge cases.

Send one prompt at a time. I learned this through pain. When I’d send Replit Agent a massive prompt with ten features, it would get confused, create circular dependencies, and break things that were already working. One feature per prompt. Confirm it works. Sync to GitHub. Then the next one. Sequential beats batch every single time.

The meta-lesson here is that prompting is a skill, and like any skill, you get better with reps. My prompts from three months ago are embarrassing compared to what I write now. Not because I took a course. Because I shipped a hundred features and noticed what worked.

If you’re vibe coding and your results feel mediocre, it’s probably not the AI. It’s the prompt. And that’s actually good news — because it means the fix is within your control.

Subscribe now

THE VERDICT

Quick Takes

• Replit Agent vs. Claude Code: different jobs. I use Replit Agent to build features and Claude Code to review them. Trying to use one for both is like using a hammer to paint. People keep asking me which is “better.” They’re not comparable. One creates. The other critiques. You need both. Having said that, in the past week, I’ve started having Claude (chat) write the prompts for Claude Code, then push to GitHub… cutting the Replit Agent out of the equation entirely. I’ll report back next week.

• The “prompt engineering” job title is already dead and I think that’s fine. It was never a job — it’s a competency. Like “googling things effectively” was a competency in 2008. The people who prompt well will just be better at their actual jobs. The people who made it their whole identity are going to have a rough year.

• Law firms that ban AI are going to lose associates. I’m hearing from more and more young lawyers who are quietly using AI for research, drafting, and review — and lying about it because their firms have blanket prohibitions. The firms that figure out responsible AI policies first will win the talent war. The ones that stick their heads in the sand will wonder why everyone under 35 left.

THE CONFESSIONAL

I Used a Fake Statistic in a Pitch Deck

Not on purpose. But still.

A few weeks ago I was building a sales deck and I asked Claude to help me find statistics about legal tech spending. It gave me a beautifully formatted stat: “67% of mid-size firms report dissatisfaction with their current DMS.” Sounded great. Felt right. I put it in the deck.

Then, right before a demo, something nagged at me. I went to verify the source. Couldn’t find it. Because it didn’t exist. Claude had hallucinated a statistic and I’d almost presented it to a 50-attorney law firm as fact.

Now I verify every single data point before it goes into anything external. Lesson learned the uncomfortable way. AI is a fantastic collaborator and a terrible fact-checker. Don’t outsource your credibility.

Thanks for reading.

I’m a lawyer who builds software and I have no idea what I’m doing. Sort of.

Six months ago, I was laid off from a tech startup. It was my first job in tech, and my first experience with layoffs. (I’d been in private practice for the first 8+ years of my career).

When it happened, I texted a friend who'd worked at all the Big Tech companies. She s…

Read more