Is the Legal Tech Market growing now?
Everything we know about the Legal Tech market, in one place. Get our report whether you build or invest.
Summary
Yes, Legaltech is growing strongly these days. Software revenues are rising, lawyers are adopting AI rapidly, and investors are still committing billions, although the financial benefits are far less evenly distributed than the excitement suggests.
The clearest evidence comes from established businesses. RELX and Thomson Reuters both reported 10% organic or underlying growth in their legal divisions during 2026, while Clio passed $500 million in annual recurring revenue. Legaltech's expansion is already visible in actual sales.
Venture funding tells a more complicated story. Legaltech startups raised approximately $2.9 billion during the first nine months of 2026, roughly matching the same period in 2025, but the number of financing rounds fell from 95 to 85. Investors are deploying similar amounts into fewer companies.
Just four funding rounds accounted for approximately 52% of that capital. Harvey, Legora, and Norm Ai attracted exceptional investments, making the overall market appear stronger than the financing activity experienced by many smaller startups.
The opportunity is also broader than AI research assistants. Across 352 tracked financing rounds since 2023, compliance, privacy, and contract-management startups completed 108 rounds, compared with 44 for AI assistants. Less glamorous operational software remains a major part of the industry.
Lawyers are adopting AI much faster than they are integrating it into everyday work. In one UK and Ireland survey, 88% of legal professionals reported using AI, but only 27% had incorporated it into daily workflows. There is still considerable room for software vendors to turn experimentation into regular usage.
More adoption does not automatically mean more profit. PwC found that 66% of the UK's largest law firms were using AI, yet only 8% reported meaningful commercial returns. Faster drafting and research are useful, but firms still need to capture the savings financially.
Legaltech spending has stronger underlying support than AI enthusiasm alone. US law firms increased technology investment approximately 9.7% during 2025 against just 1.9% growth in billable demand, while corporate legal departments face increasing regulatory and cybersecurity workloads without comparable hiring plans.
Competition is becoming tougher. Harvey and Legora are winning major law firms, established providers are adding AI to their products, and some enormous law firms are building proprietary systems. Reliable legal information, workflow integration, and access to customer data are becoming increasingly important advantages.
Our conclusion is that Legaltech's commercial growth is real, but some startup valuations are running ahead of what has been financially demonstrated. Legora's valuation reached roughly 56 times reported ARR, while legal AI still faces accuracy problems and uncertain returns for customers. The strongest long-term businesses will be those that become essential to legal work and can prove their economic value. Accuracy problems and uncertain returns for customers can slow legal tech, and we rate those risks by likelihood in our report on legal tech.
Written by the New Market Pitch teamWe track new markets so founders and investors can move faster. About us
Why is Legaltech getting so much attention now?
Legaltech is getting much more attention these days because lawyers are adopting AI quickly, established software companies are growing faster, and investors are putting billions into the sector.
The most visible example is Harvey, which raised $550 million at a $15.5 billion valuation in September 2026. Meanwhile, LexisNexis owner RELX reported 10% underlying revenue growth in its legal division during the first half of 2026, and Thomson Reuters reported the same organic growth rate in its Legal Professionals division for Q2. Ten percent growth at the big legal publishers is a market signal we follow every quarter in our market report about legal tech.
A recent PwC survey adds another piece of the story. AI adoption among the UK's 100 largest law firms rose from 43% to 66%, although only 8% reported meaningful commercial returns.
We can already see the tension behind Legaltech's growth. Software companies are making more money, lawyers are adopting new tools, and investors are willing to pay extraordinary valuations. Yet many law firms still haven't figured out how to turn AI into additional profits.
That difference between adoption and economic results is what makes today's Legaltech boom worth investigating.
Is Legaltech funding still growing in 2026?
Legaltech is still attracting billions in venture funding, although investment has stopped accelerating after a record 2025.
According to Crunchbase, legal and Legaltech startups attracted approximately $4.6 billion in 2025, the highest annual total in its dataset.
A separate financing database maintained by Bot Memo gives us a more detailed comparison. It tracked 352 Legaltech equity rounds worldwide between January 2023 and September 2026, totaling approximately $9.9 billion. Within that dataset, annual funding increased from $608 million in 2023 to $4.3 billion in 2025.
The first nine months of 2026 brought another $2.9 billion. Interestingly, that was roughly the same amount raised during the corresponding nine months of 2025, despite the number of rounds falling from 95 to 85.
Investors are still putting enormous amounts into Legaltech, but they are financing fewer companies.
The two databases have slightly different coverage, explaining why their 2025 totals differ. Both show how dramatically funding has increased since 2023.
The table compares full calendar years and equivalent January-to-September periods separately. Figures come from Bot Memo's disclosed-equity-round dataset, which excludes debt and counts announced round sizes.
| Period | Funding raised | Number of rounds |
|---|---|---|
| Full year 2023 | $608M | 56 |
| Full year 2024 | $2.2B | 81 |
| Full year 2025 | $4.3B | 130 |
| Jan–Sep 2023 | $399M | 38 |
| Jan–Sep 2024 | $1.8B | 62 |
| Jan–Sep 2025 | $2.9B | 95 |
| Jan–Sep 2026 | $2.9B | 85 |
In our report covering the legaltech market, we always try to gather several sources and make estimates that make sense, so you can work with solid numbers.
Are a few giant Legaltech startups making the funding numbers look better than they are?
Yes. Four Legaltech funding rounds accounted for approximately 52% of all capital raised in the first nine months of 2026.
We checked Bot Memo's financing breakdown and found that four transactions contributed approximately $1.5 billion of the period's $2.9 billion total.
Legora's $600 million Series D, including its subsequent extension, was the largest. Harvey raised $550 million in September and another $200 million earlier in the year. Norm Ai completed a $120 million round in July.
Just four rounds out of 85 attracted more than half the money.
That concentration makes the market look stronger when measured in dollars than when measured by the number of companies receiving funding.
The geographical breakdown reinforces the concern. Across the US and Europe, the number of Legaltech rounds declined from 79 during January–September 2025 to 67 in the equivalent period of 2026.
Some categories suffered particularly sharp declines. Contract and contract-lifecycle-management rounds fell from 11 to five, while plaintiff and personal-injury Legaltech rounds dropped from nine to one.
Compliance, tax, and privacy financing went the other way, increasing from eight rounds to 13 over the same period.
Investors continue backing the strongest companies aggressively, while several previously popular categories are attracting fewer new rounds. The headline funding total hides quite a lot of that weakness.
Is Legaltech growing beyond AI assistants?
Legaltech growth extends well beyond AI assistants, with practice management, compliance software, and contract tools accounting for most of the industry's financing activity.
Bot Memo's database lets us separate different Legaltech categories across 352 funding rounds from January 2023 through September 2026.
AI assistants and legal research attracted approximately $3 billion, or 30% of total capital, despite representing only 13% of all financing rounds. Large transactions involving Harvey and Legora explain much of that imbalance.
Practice-management and billing companies received another $2.2 billion, helped by substantial investments in Clio and Filevine.
But the greatest number of rounds occurred elsewhere. Compliance, tax, and privacy startups completed 56 financings, while contract-management companies completed 52. Those categories together accounted for 108 rounds, compared with 44 for AI assistants.
Research assistants attract the largest checks, while startups tackling contracts, regulation, and everyday legal operations are attracting funding more frequently.
It also changes how we should think about Legaltech's future. The market already contains several different businesses with different customers, budgets, and opportunities.
The table uses one primary category per company so that its ten rows sum to the tracked total.
| Legaltech category | Funding | Deals | Share of funding |
|---|---|---|---|
| AI assistants and legal research | $3.0B | 44 | 30% |
| Practice management and billing | $2.2B | 32 | 22% |
| Compliance, tax, and privacy | $1.0B | 56 | 10% |
| Contracts and CLM | $873M | 52 | 9% |
| Plaintiff and personal injury | $664M | 19 | 7% |
| AI-native law firms and consumer legal | $588M | 36 | 6% |
| Litigation and court software | $528M | 43 | 5% |
| Corporate legal operations | $456M | 22 | 5% |
| Intellectual property and patents | $343M | 31 | 3% |
| Transactions and due diligence | $264M | 17 | 3% |
In our research about legal technology, we don't want to repeat what boring consulting reports say. Instead, we show you the real and latest market signals that matter.
How much money are Legaltech startups actually making?
Several Legaltech companies now generate hundreds of millions in annual recurring revenue, and newer AI startups are reaching meaningful sales much faster than traditional software businesses did.
Clio exceeded $500 million in annual recurring revenue in May 2026. According to reporting by TechCrunch, it had reached $200 million in mid-2024 and doubled that figure by late 2025.
The growth is impressive, although part of the latest increase followed Clio's acquisition of vLex. We cannot attribute the entire jump to organic customer growth. Separating acquired revenue from organic growth is part of sizing the market, and every assumption in our own estimate is visible in our report covering the legal tech market.
Legora provides a particularly striking contrast. The Swedish-founded legal AI company crossed $100 million in annual recurring revenue roughly 18 months after launching its platform, according to its April 2026 announcement and reporting by TechCrunch.
Harvey has also reported unusually rapid expansion. The company said it added more than $100 million in annual recurring revenue during the first quarter of 2026. Separately, The Information reported in August that its annualized revenue had passed $350 million, up from approximately $190 million in January. Those figures were attributed to a person familiar with the fundraising and are less directly verifiable than audited revenue.
Smaller specialist companies are generating substantial sales too. Brightflag reached approximately €27 million in annual recurring revenue by April 2025, after growing revenue 36% during 2024, according to its acquirer Wolters Kluwer.
There is now meaningful revenue evidence across practice management, corporate legal operations, and AI assistants.
The next challenge for these businesses is retaining customers as AI features become standard across competing platforms.
Are established Legaltech companies growing as fast as the startups?
Established Legaltech companies are growing at around 5% to 10% organically, with some legal software and information businesses accelerating as AI becomes part of their products.
RELX reported £959 million in first-half 2026 legal revenue, up from £900 million one year earlier. Its underlying growth reached 10%, compared with 9% during 2025.
More interestingly, adjusted operating profit grew from £188 million to £208 million in the same six-month comparison. RELX increased its legal division's profit faster than its reported revenue.
Thomson Reuters showed similar strength. Its Legal Professionals division generated $772 million in Q2 2026, compared with $704 million a year earlier. Organic revenue grew 10%, driven primarily by products including Westlaw and CoCounsel.
Wolters Kluwer reported more moderate growth. Its Legal & Regulatory division generated €1.005 billion during 2025, with 5% organic growth. Digital information and service subscriptions grew 8%, while print and more established product lines held back the overall division.
Digital legal subscriptions are growing faster than some of the divisions containing them.
These companies also have a financial advantage over younger competitors. Thomson Reuters' Legal Professionals division reported a 48.1% adjusted EBITDA margin in Q2 2026, meaning it generated approximately $371 million in adjusted EBITDA from $772 million of revenue.
The table brings together reported revenue figures and the corresponding organic or underlying growth measures. Blank growth cells indicate that the row serves as a comparison baseline.
| Company and period | Revenue | Organic / underlying growth |
|---|---|---|
| RELX Legal, FY 2024 | £1.718B | - |
| RELX Legal, FY 2025 | £1.806B | +9% |
| RELX Legal, H1 2025 | £900M | - |
| RELX Legal, H1 2026 | £959M | +10% |
| Thomson Reuters Legal, Q2 2025 | $704M | - |
| Thomson Reuters Legal, Q2 2026 | $772M | +10% |
| Wolters Kluwer Legal, FY 2024 | €946M | - |
| Wolters Kluwer Legal, FY 2025 | €1.005B | +5% |
In our market report about legal technology, we like to show you the big picture. We know your time is precious, so we make every page quick to read and packed with as much learning as possible per minute.
Are lawyers really using AI these days?
Lawyers are using AI much more frequently now, although occasional use remains far more common than fully integrating AI into everyday legal work.
Thomson Reuters' 2026 AI in Professional Services Report found that 41% of surveyed law firms were using generative AI, up from 28% in 2025. Among corporate legal teams, adoption rose from 23% to 47%.
A survey by Karnov Group reached a similar conclusion in Europe. Among 3,129 legal professionals in Denmark, France, Norway, Spain, and Sweden, roughly 60% said they used AI at least weekly.
But Clio's 2026 research in the United Kingdom and Ireland uncovered a particularly useful distinction. While 88% of surveyed legal professionals reported using AI, only 27% had incorporated it into their daily workflows.
That leaves a 61-percentage-point difference between broad usage and deep integration within the same survey.
The surveys measure different populations and levels of adoption, so we should avoid combining their percentages into one worldwide figure. Still, they agree on the direction: AI usage among lawyers is spreading quickly, and there is substantial room for deeper adoption.
| Survey and population | Earlier result | Latest result |
|---|---|---|
| Thomson Reuters: law firms using GenAI | 28% in 2025 | 41% in 2026 |
| Thomson Reuters: corporate legal teams using GenAI | 23% in 2025 | 47% in 2026 |
| PwC: UK Top 100 law firms using AI | 43% previously | 66% in 2026 |
| Clio: solo practitioners using AI | - | 71% in 2026 |
| Clio: small law firms using AI | - | 75% in 2026 |
| Clio: UK and Ireland professionals using AI | - | 88% in 2026 |
| Clio: UK and Ireland professionals with AI in daily workflows | - | 27% in 2026 |
| Karnov: European legal professionals using AI weekly | - | About 60% in 2026 |
Are law firms spending more money on Legaltech?
Law firms are increasing technology spending much faster than their workloads, giving Legaltech vendors a growing share of attention and investment.
The 2026 State of the US Legal Market report, published by Thomson Reuters and Georgetown Law, found that surveyed American law firms increased technology investment by approximately 9.7% during 2025.
Over the same period, average demand for legal services, measured through billable hours, grew 1.9%. Technology budgets growing much faster than billable demand is a growth driver we break down in our legal tech market report.
Technology spending therefore increased more than five times faster in percentage terms than the amount of legal work being performed.
We also checked whether law firms could afford this spending. The report found average profit growth of 13%, while worked billing rates increased 7.3%. Profitable firms had room to buy new software even without a comparable increase in their workloads.
However, technology is also becoming more expensive. Gartner warned in September 2026 that AI vendors were introducing pricing linked to actual usage rather than just the number of software users.
Gartner expects consumption-based charges to account for more than 35% of new corporate Legaltech spending with major vendors by 2028. That is a forecast, but the underlying pricing change is already happening.
Law firms may eventually find that the AI systems saving the most working hours also create the largest software bills. The economics will depend on how much useful work each dollar of AI spending produces.
In our document detailing everything you need to know about legaltech, we turn what is vague and complex into simple, useful visuals. Market maps like this one show you at a glance where every startup stands.
Why do corporate legal teams want more software when their budgets are tighter?
Corporate legal departments increasingly need Legaltech because their workloads are rising without similar increases in staff or spending.
CLOC's 2026 State of the Industry report found that 63% of surveyed departments reported increasing regulatory-compliance workloads, while 58% reported increasing cybersecurity-related legal work.
At the same time, only 32% expected attorney headcount to increase, and 47% expected higher spending on internal legal teams. The proportion anticipating increased outside counsel spending fell from 58% to 37% year over year.
We are looking at more legal work, particularly in technically demanding areas, without a matching willingness to hire lawyers or pay outside firms.
That explains the interest in contract management, automated legal intake, compliance monitoring, and tools that help companies review outside counsel invoices.
The Association of Corporate Counsel's 2026 survey of 1,049 chief legal officers across 43 countries found that 63% expected their department's headcount to remain stable.
And CLOC found that 85% of legal departments had dedicated AI oversight or resources, while 80% of legal operations professionals considered technology strategy a priority.
Corporate legal teams have a particularly strong reason to automate repetitive work. Their managers are being asked to handle more legal responsibilities with roughly the same number of people.
Is legal AI actually making law firms more money?
Legal AI is helping lawyers work faster, but most law firms still cannot demonstrate that the technology has increased their profits.
PwC's latest UK Law Firm Survey found that 66% of the country's Top 100 law firms were using AI, while only 8% had achieved meaningful commercial returns.
That is a 58-percentage-point gap between adoption and measurable financial results.
Clio's research found a similar divide between different sizes of law firms. Approximately 59% of enterprise firms reported revenue growth associated with AI, compared with around one-third of solo and small firms.
Thomson Reuters' 2026 AI in Professional Services Report provides another warning. Only 18% of surveyed professionals across legal and other professional services said their organizations measured AI return on investment. Another 40% did not know whether ROI was being measured at all.
Those findings help explain why productivity claims should be treated carefully. A lawyer completing a contract review in half the time has become more efficient, but the financial benefit depends on what happens next.
If the lawyer takes on additional paid work, the firm can increase revenue. If the customer pays by the hour, the firm may simply send a smaller invoice.
There is convincing evidence that AI can improve efficiency. But the financial payoff is still much less widespread than the technology's adoption, and that is a pretty big distinction.
Our report covering the legaltech market gets updated several times a month, so you always get the latest view of where things stand.
Is AI helping small law firms grow?
AI is helping small law firms work faster, but only a minority are using those savings to generate more revenue.
Clio's 2026 Legal Trends for Solo and Small Law Firms report found that 32% of solo practitioners and 31% of small firms had increased revenue after adopting AI.
The report also found that 64% of solo firms said AI improved work quality, 62% reported fewer tedious tasks, and 60% said they responded to clients faster. Solo and small firms want fewer tedious tasks and faster client responses, and we describe which problems they would pay to solve in our report on legal tech.
We have a fairly clear explanation for the mismatch.
According to Clio, 86% of solo firms and 78% of small firms had made no pricing changes since adopting AI. In addition, 27% of solos and 33% of small firms identified a lack of time as their main barrier to adopting new technology.
Many smaller practices lack the staff and resources needed to redesign how they operate. They can buy an AI assistant without having a clear plan for integrating it into client intake, document management, billing, and marketing.
Larger firms have dedicated operations teams and can spread technology costs across more customers.
That gives small firms plenty of opportunities to improve, but it also means vendors selling to them must solve practical business problems rather than simply promise faster drafting.
Will AI kill the billable hour in legal services?
AI is putting real pressure on hourly legal billing, although the billable hour is unlikely to disappear quickly.
The problem is easy to understand. If preparing a document previously required five hours but now requires one, a lawyer charging by the hour has four fewer hours to invoice.
Clio's historical billing data shows that change was already happening before generative AI became widespread. The proportion of solo firms billing exclusively by the hour fell from 55% in 2019 to 50% in its latest reporting. Among small firms, the share declined from 53% to 43%.
Meanwhile, Clio found that 71% of surveyed legal-service customers preferred fixed or flat fees when offered a choice.
Some large firms are beginning to rethink pricing more openly. Cooley CEO Rachel Proffitt recently described AI as an opportunity to focus client relationships on legal outcomes rather than hours worked. The firm has also created a dedicated AI subsidiary to develop legal technology.
That direction makes economic sense. A fixed-price service lets a firm benefit directly when software reduces the cost of completing the work.
However, many complex legal matters still involve unpredictable workloads, negotiation, and litigation risks. Hourly billing remains convenient when neither the lawyer nor the customer can estimate the work in advance.
We expect a gradual shift toward fixed prices for repeatable tasks, while more complicated services continue using hourly or hybrid arrangements.
In our research about legal technology, you will always find fresh funding data, taken straight from our own verified funding database.
Can lawyers actually trust legal AI research today?
Legal AI research tools are useful today, but their accuracy is still too inconsistent for lawyers to rely on them without checking the underlying sources.
A 2026 Stanford RegLab study tested AI systems on questions involving US state unemployment insurance laws.
The researchers found 58% accuracy for a tested Westlaw AI system and 64% for Lexis+ AI on the benchmark. A specialized research assistant developed for the study reached 83% against the original reference answers and 92% after researchers corrected omissions in the reference material.
The results apply to the specific tasks and product versions tested. They do not measure every legal research activity or establish a universal error rate for either commercial platform.
Nevertheless, the findings show how easily mistakes can survive even when legal databases and specialized tools are involved.
Regulators have encountered real consequences. Britain's Solicitors Regulation Authority received 42 reports concerning potential AI misuse between July 2025 and July 2026. The concerns included inaccurate case references, inadequate supervision, and risks to client confidentiality.
In August 2026, the regulator issued a warning reminding solicitors that they remain responsible for checking AI-generated legal material.
These problems create a commercial opportunity for products offering reliable source verification, permissions, audit records, and human-review tools.
Customers dealing with litigation or confidential documents have reasons to pay for specialist legal software, even when general-purpose AI tools are cheaper.
Are Legaltech companies buying smaller competitors to grow faster?
Legaltech acquisitions are becoming an important part of the market, with large software companies buying specialist AI tools and startups expanding into adjacent legal workflows.
Clio completed its $1 billion acquisition of vLex in November 2025. The deal connected its practice-management products with legal research content and AI capabilities.
Wolters Kluwer followed a different route. Its €425 million acquisition of Brightflag added corporate legal spending and matter management to its existing software portfolio. It also acquired Germany's Libra Technology for up to €90 million to expand its legal AI capabilities. Buying smaller rivals to build a broad platform is one of the leader moves we study in our market report about legal tech.
AI-native startups are acquiring companies too.
Crunchbase's August 2026 review identified at least five acquisitions involving Legora and three involving Harvey during the year to that point. Harvey subsequently announced its acquisition of Guardrails AI, a company specializing in AI safety and security.
There is a pattern across these transactions. Firms that began with legal research are moving into everyday legal workflows, while practice-management companies want stronger research and AI capabilities.
Both approaches aim to provide more of the software a legal team uses throughout a case or transaction.
For smaller startups, that creates two possible outcomes. They might become attractive acquisition targets, or find that customers prefer integrated products from larger vendors.
In our market report about legal technology, we look at what the winners do differently, so you can learn from the best instead of guessing.
Can Harvey and Legora really compete with LexisNexis?
Harvey and Legora have already become serious competitors in legal AI, but replacing established research platforms such as LexisNexis is a much harder challenge.
Harvey reported that 80 of the Am Law 100 firms used its platform by September 2026. That is unusually broad penetration of America's highest-grossing law firms.
Legora has also won major legal customers. Its public customer references include White & Case, Cleary Gottlieb, Goodwin, and Linklaters.
These names show that established law firms are willing to buy new AI platforms alongside the technology they already use.
However, RELX's LexisNexis business benefits from decades of legal publishing, proprietary content, established subscriptions, and integrations with professional workflows. Thomson Reuters has similar advantages through Westlaw, Practical Law, and CoCounsel.
Harvey has started building more technology internally, including a post-trained open-weight legal model. Noxtua is taking another approach by partnering with established European legal publishers to combine AI tools with jurisdiction-specific content.
The competitive advantage increasingly depends on access to trusted information, customer data, and practical workflows.
A firm could keep its LexisNexis subscription for verified legal research while using Harvey or Legora to draft documents and manage more complex tasks.
Competition will intensify around those overlapping functions. For now, the biggest AI-native vendors have proved they can win major customers, but the established providers are still growing and remain deeply embedded in the market.
Is Legaltech growing outside the United States?
Legaltech is growing outside the United States, and European funding has increased sharply even as US deal activity has slowed.
Bot Memo's financing database shows that European Legaltech companies raised approximately $1.1 billion in 26 rounds during January–September 2026, compared with $425 million across 22 rounds during the equivalent period of 2025.
That represents an increase of roughly 159% in funding dollars.
Legora explains a large part of the increase because its financing was attributed to Sweden in the database. But even after excluding the company, Bot Memo calculated that European funding increased 37%.
The United States moved in the opposite direction, falling from approximately $2.1 billion in 57 rounds to $1.5 billion in 41 rounds.
The European market is also producing companies beyond Sweden.
Edinburgh-based Wordsmith raised an $84 million round, Italian legal research startup Lexroom raised $50 million, and UK company Lawhive secured $60 million to expand its AI-supported legal services.
Germany's Noxtua subsequently announced a financing exceeding €100 million, alongside an expanded relationship with legal publisher C.H.BECK.
One important difference remains. In the first nine months of 2026, Europe recorded only two Legaltech Series A rounds in Bot Memo's dataset, compared with 11 in the United States.
Europe is producing promising companies and attracting substantial late-stage capital, but the path from seed funding to Series A appears thinner.
If you build or invest in the legaltech market, you need to know which business models pay off now and which ones are fading. That's why our report covering it has a whole section on it.
Is Legaltech making legal services cheaper for ordinary people?
Legaltech is making basic legal information easier to access, but there is little convincing evidence that professional legal services have become broadly cheaper.
Clio's 2025 Legal Trends Report found that 53% of surveyed consumers who had used AI for a legal question felt it answered their question adequately.
Another 28% said the AI directed them toward contacting a lawyer, while 12% said it helped them decide their legal issue was not worth pursuing.
These are meaningful changes in how people seek legal information. Someone can now ask initial questions about a rental agreement, employment dispute, or contract without immediately booking a consultation.
But we should distinguish getting information from resolving a legal problem. Complicated disputes still require accurate advice, negotiations, representation, and sometimes litigation.
The available pricing evidence is less encouraging.
Thomson Reuters and Georgetown Law reported that US law firms increased worked billing rates by 7.3% during 2025. That happened while firms were investing heavily in technology.
There is no clear evidence yet of a corresponding industry-wide reduction in what consumers pay for professional legal help.
The strongest near-term opportunity may be making simple services cheaper and easier to obtain, particularly standard documents and initial legal guidance.
For expensive or complex cases, the savings have yet to show up consistently in customer prices.
Are Legaltech startup valuations getting too high?
Some Legaltech startup valuations now assume years of extraordinary growth, making the investment story considerably riskier than the industry's actual revenue story.
Consider Legora. Its financing in March 2026 valued the company at $5.55 billion, followed by an extension at approximately $5.6 billion. Its shortly afterward reported $100 million ARR implies a valuation of roughly 56 times annual recurring revenue. Paying 56 times ARR says a lot about what investors are willing to back, and we follow where that money goes in our legal tech market report.
That is an extremely demanding multiple, particularly when compared with mature software companies.
Clio provides a useful comparison. It received a $5 billion valuation in its November 2025 financing and passed $500 million ARR several months later. Comparing those different dates gives a ratio below 10 times, although the acquisition of vLex makes the comparison imperfect.
Harvey's valuation increased from approximately $8 billion in December 2025 to $11 billion in March 2026 and $15.5 billion by September. That is an increase of almost 94% across successive funding announcements in about nine months.
The pace is remarkable. But without consistent disclosure of Harvey's revenue, profitability, customer retention, and operating costs, we cannot calculate a reliable valuation multiple for its latest round.
We can still identify the difference in expectations.
An investor paying 56 times ARR needs a company to become dramatically larger, retain its customers, and preserve strong margins. If growth slows sooner than expected, the valuation can fall even while revenue continues increasing.
Legaltech valuations therefore deserve more skepticism than Legaltech demand itself.
When you build or invest in the legaltech market, you need clarity, not confusion. In our report covering the legaltech market, we always try to put numbers on and quantify whatever is usually vague and confusing.
Are law firms starting to build their own AI instead of buying Legaltech?
Some of the largest law firms are now developing their own AI systems, creating a new source of competition for specialist Legaltech vendors.
Kirkland & Ellis has committed approximately $500 million to AI and technology initiatives, including a partnership with Palantir. Bloomberg Law reported in June 2026 that Kirkland's AI and innovation team included more than 180 engineers and data scientists.
Morgan & Morgan has gone even further in its stated ambitions. In September 2026, the personal-injury firm announced a commitment of at least $1 billion to AI and technology over ten years. It said approximately $300 million had already been invested in developing its internal MX2 platform and related technology.
The firm also plans to offer the technology to other law firms, potentially turning an internal system into a commercial software product.
Freshfields is exploring a similar possibility. According to recent Financial Times reporting, partners discussed separating Freshfields Lab, its internal AI unit, into a business capable of attracting outside investors. Those discussions remain preliminary.
Large law firms have something technology startups often lack: years of internal case documents, transaction histories, billing records, and specialist expertise. They can use that information to build AI systems tailored to how their lawyers work.
However, developing internal software requires substantial investment and technical expertise. The economics are very different for a global law firm and a small practice.
We expect the largest firms to develop more proprietary tools while continuing to buy commercial Legaltech where building in-house makes less sense.
Some could eventually become software competitors themselves.
Is Legaltech growing these days?
Yes. Legaltech is growing strongly today, with real increases in software revenue, AI adoption, and technology spending. However, the industry's funding boom is concentrated in a few companies, and most law firms are still learning how to turn AI adoption into additional profits.
The clearest evidence comes from actual customers. Major legal information providers are growing organically at high-single-digit to low-double-digit rates, AI-native startups have reached substantial recurring revenue, and lawyers are increasingly using AI in their daily work.
Venture investment confirms that investors expect further expansion, although the number of funding rounds has recently declined. Money is becoming more concentrated in the biggest companies.
The gap between adoption and financial benefits is particularly important. PwC found that only a small minority of leading UK law firms had achieved meaningful commercial returns from AI, even though most had already adopted it.
The market is moving quickly from experimentation toward regular software use. AI research, contract management, compliance, legal operations, and practice management are all attracting customers and investment. Yet the winners will need to prove that their products remain useful, reliable, and worth paying for once the initial excitement fades.
We are confident that Legaltech's commercial growth is real. We are much less confident that today's biggest startup valuations will all be justified.
For now, the strongest opportunity is in tools that become part of how legal work actually gets done, especially when they save measurable time or costs.
Legaltech is growing. The harder question is how much of today's rapid expansion will translate into lasting profits for software vendors, better economics for law firms, and lower costs for their customers.
A good product starts with a real problem. In our research about legal technology, we show you the ones customers still live with.
Our methodology
To assess whether Legaltech is growing these days, we broke the question into six measurable dimensions: investment activity, company revenues, customer adoption, technology spending, competitive dynamics, and the economic value actually delivered. Each dimension was examined separately before we brought the findings together to assess the industry's overall direction.
For each dimension, we gathered recent evidence from company financial disclosures, original financing databases, industry surveys, independent research, regulatory findings, and reported transactions. We prioritized observable developments and commercially meaningful results over market forecasts, promotional claims, or general enthusiasm around AI.
We then examined the underlying evidence point by point, looking for differences that headline figures often conceal. Funding growth was assessed against financing-round counts, concentration among the largest transactions, and category-level activity. Revenue expansion was distinguished from customer adoption, while reported productivity improvements were evaluated separately from measurable financial returns.
Comparisons were made across equivalent periods wherever possible. Full-year funding totals are presented separately from January-to-September comparisons, and disclosed equity-round amounts exclude debt financing. Funding categories use one primary classification per company to avoid double counting. Company-reported ARR, divisional revenues, and survey findings retain their original definitions rather than being treated as interchangeable measures.
We also compared emerging companies with established providers, and assessed differences between large law firms, smaller practices, and corporate legal departments. Particular attention was given to developments that could challenge a simple growth narrative: concentrated funding, incomplete AI integration, uncertain returns on investment, research accuracy, changing billing models, and increasingly demanding startup valuations.
Our conclusions come from aggregating these findings rather than relying on a handful of exceptional companies or isolated announcements. Where several independent indicators point in the same direction, we place greater confidence in the conclusion. Where investment expectations are moving faster than demonstrated commercial results, we distinguish those expectations from growth already supported by evidence.
For investment activity, our principal sources include Bot Memo's Legal AI financing database, covering 352 tracked equity rounds, Crunchbase's Legaltech funding and acquisition analysis, Harvey's September 2026 financing announcement, Legora's Series D disclosure, and Bloomberg Law's reporting on Legora's financing extension.
For company revenues and commercial performance, we used Clio's $500 million ARR announcement, Bessemer Venture Partners' account of Legora reaching $100 million ARR, RELX's 2026 interim financial results, Thomson Reuters' second-quarter 2026 results, and Wolters Kluwer's 2025 full-year results.
For AI adoption, spending, and the economics of legal work, key sources include PwC's UK Law Firm Survey, Thomson Reuters' 2026 AI in Professional Services Report, Karnov Group's European legal profession survey, Clio's research on solo and small law firms, Clio's UK and Ireland Legal Insights Report, and Thomson Reuters and Georgetown Law's 2026 State of the US Legal Market.
For corporate legal operations, reliability, market consolidation, and consumer outcomes, we also consulted CLOC's 2026 State of the Industry Report, the Association of Corporate Counsel's 2026 Chief Legal Officers Survey, Stanford RegLab's benchmarking of legal AI research, the Solicitors Regulation Authority's findings on responsible AI use, Clio's disclosure of its $1 billion vLex acquisition, and Clio's Legal Trends research on consumers and legal services.
Learning from others' mistakes is the cheapest lesson there is. In our market report about legal technology, we look at what broke startups before you, so you don't repeat it.
Written by the New Market Pitch teamWe track new markets so founders and investors can move faster. About us