Legal Tech Architect
Maximise the ROI of your tech stack in minutes
Select your firm from the list below and we'll show you the stack we already have on file. Take a moment to review and confirm it, and both tools unlock — one will calculate potential benefits from your current AI platforms and suggest prioritised AI use cases for your firm. The other will audit your current tech stack, and identify any gaps, as well as current overlaps, along with the potential cost of overlap to your firm.
Select your firm
Select your firm to populate both tools.
Build a custom firm instead
A custom firm starts with no tools held — confirm or add tools in Stage 2.
Two ways to read your stack
Both tools unlock reports that highlight opportunities for you to get the most value from your technology, while ensuring you're not paying twice for overlapping products. Then use the pricing engine to identify the best strategy for pricing work, how to incorporate AI work into your pricing, and its commercial impact.
Benefit Estimate
A modelled annual benefit from the use cases your stack can run today.
Tool Stack Audit
Where are there potential gaps, or two or more tools doubling up.
Pricing Engine
A defensible pricing model, price band, and migration plan for one matter type — AI-aware, per matter type, not per firm.
Run-Cost Exposure
What your current run-the-firm technology base costs you every year, right now.
Peer Benchmark
Where your stack sits vs firms in your bracket, the tier above, or up to five named firms. 5–8 minutes.
v1.0
AI Benefit Estimate
How the estimate is calculated
For each use case you select, we look up a category-level annual benefit band drawn from published sources (Legal AI Industry Briefing 2026, Stanford 2024, sector productivity studies) and apply two multipliers: a firm-size multiplier (0.7× at the smallest firms, 1.35× at the largest) and an adoption-maturity discount of 0.6× where your current tool stack could already deliver the use case, reflecting incremental — not total — gain. Use cases you cannot yet deliver ("gaps") count at 1.0×.
The Low / Central / High bands are the bounds of that modelled range; Central is the figure we recommend planning against. The investment cost band is derived from the number of net-new tools your firm would need to acquire (scaled by firm size), and payback is investment ÷ annual benefit, capped at 6–36 months.
What the figure represents. The number is the annualised value of capacity freed by each use case. For fee-earning use cases, that's fee-earner time saved × blended hourly rate × annual task volume. For business-services use cases, it's the same formula against the relevant BS team's rate (BD, risk, InfoSec) or a percentage of loaded FTE cost recovered (dev, SOC, T&E). It is not an automatic cost saving — turning capacity into cash requires redirecting it into billable work, not backfilling attrition, or — for billing and finance use cases specifically — reducing write-offs on the revenue base.
This is a modelled estimate, not a forecast; typical variance from real outcomes is ±40%.
Selected use cases · implementable with your current stack
These sit behind the conservative benefit estimate on the cover page — every one deliverable with tools already in your confirmed stack.
| Use case | Description | Category | Annual benefit (central) |
|---|
Gap use cases · potential upside if new tooling acquired
These sit outside the conservative headline. Each is a use case Alt-V's library covers but your current stack cannot deliver — the value shown is the estimated annual benefit at 1.0× (no adoption discount) if the firm invested in the missing tool. Read this table as the upside case, not as spend already justified.
| Use case | Description | Category | Annual benefit (central) |
|---|
Ready to go further?
For full details of each use case and a step by step implementation guide, contact Alt-V to discuss.
derek.duffy@altruisticventures.com →Refine — adjust use cases & assumptions
v1.0
Tool Stack Audit
—
—
| Capability | Overlapping tools | vs peer median firms in your size band |
Per FE / yr | Annual |
|---|
Capability coverage map
Potential gaps are capabilities we have not identified coverage for in your confirmed stack. Some tools may cover capabilities we have not yet mapped — confirm before acting.
How these capabilities were identified. The taxonomy is drawn from the CLOC Core 12 Functional Areas (Corporate Legal Operations Consortium, 2024) overlaid with categories from the ILTA Technology Survey (International Legal Technology Association, 2025). Tool → capability mappings come from vendor product documentation, capability disclosures in ILTA / Legaltech News reporting, and Alt-V's own vendor assessments (2025–26). Firm tool inventories originate from the Legal IT Insider UK 200 survey (2025) plus firm-published AI announcements — see the methodology accordion at the end of this report for the full source list.
How the exposure figure is calculated
The number is the annualised value of potential tool overlap in your stack — capabilities where your confirmed tools hold two or more products at core or supported depth. For each overlapping capability we sum a mid-band per-FE list price across the tools involved, then multiply by your fee-earner count.
What it represents. A public-data estimate of avoidable spend, not your actual procurement figure. Realising it means consolidating your stack, negotiating exit terms with vendors at renewal, or shifting workload onto whichever tool best delivers the capability.
Peer median (vs peer column). For each capability we compute the median per-FE overlap cost across all firms in your revenue-size band in our dataset. A row at 1.5× peer means your overlap in that capability is 50% larger than the middle firm in the band. Below 3-firm samples show "insufficient peer sample". This is a directional benchmark based on public stacks — not audit-grade.
Pricing is public list-price mid-band. Actual spend depends on your enterprise agreements, discounting and licence tier. Modelled variance ±40%.
This is a directional view
The number above is sourced from public data and the firm's published stack. A consultant-delivered deep-dive validates every assumption with your IT, finance and innovation leads — then quantifies the avoidable spend with audit-grade confidence.
Book a 30-minute scoping call →Capability coverage summary
| Capability | Status | Tools | Covered by | Cost per FE / yr |
|---|
Confirmed tool inventory
| Tool | Vendor | Capabilities covered | Per FE / yr | Annual (firm-wide) |
|---|
Ready to convert this into actual savings?
For a consultant-delivered deep-dive that validates every assumption with your IT, finance and innovation leads — and quantifies avoidable spend to audit-grade confidence — contact Alt-V to discuss.
derek.duffy@altruisticventures.com →
v1.0
Run-Cost Exposure
—
—
Your inputs — benchmark shown, your actual editable
| Cost driver | Stack | Annual |
|---|
Typically addressable through modernisation
A vendor-neutral modernisation programme — not a single migration — is where this range is recovered.
How the exposure figure is calculated
Fee-earner and headcount volumes derive from your firm's confirmed fee-earner count — or, where that isn't on file, a size-band estimate — via headcount = fee-earners ÷ 0.60, with office counts from a size-band default. Every figure above is editable. Cost-driver benchmarks are drawn from a UK SME legal-IT benchmark set 2025–26, cross-checked against Alt-V engagement data; server/hosted infrastructure and the addressable-range fractions below are Alt-V-derived, flagged as such.
Unplanned downtime defaults to the conservative floor of a 1–2 hour/person/month industry range. It is monetised at fee-earner charge-out rate for fee-earners, and at a salary-derived hourly rate for support staff.
The addressable figure is a band, not a forecast, and is not tied to any specific product or vendor. This is a modelled estimate; typical variance is ±40%.
At your scale: per-user list benchmarks overstate enterprise-agreement pricing — override the cost-driver rows above with your negotiated rates for a truer read.
Application-strategy caveat. Consolidating this base assumes viable modern equivalents exist for every legacy dependency — an application audit precedes any migration.
Pair this with your : this figure is what your current base costs; that figure is what AI could add on top.
Email me this as a PDF
Optional — the full report above already works without this.
—
Ready to convert this into a modernisation plan?
For a consultant-delivered deep-dive that validates every assumption with your IT and finance leads — and turns the addressable band above into a costed programme — contact Alt-V to discuss.
derek.duffy@altruisticventures.com →Legal Tech Architect · Peer Benchmark
Peer Benchmark
—
Six questions. All aggregated and anonymised for the peer view. Nothing you enter is ever tied to your firm name in someone else's report.
Total lawyers globally. We divide the metrics by this. Software decisions are rarely taken for a UK office in isolation, so the peer view uses the whole entity.
For UK-and-AU firms this is your call. Your response goes into that market's pool; your firm is discoverable from both markets' named-firm lists.
SharePoint alongside iManage is usually an intranet, not a duplicate DMS. Tell us which capabilities each of these covers at your firm.
Complete every question above to enable submit.
Methodology, sources & citations
Benefit bands derive from the Legal AI Industry Briefing 2026, Stanford 2024 evidence and sector productivity studies. The capability taxonomy uses CLOC Core 12 Functional Areas overlaid with ILTA Technology Survey categories. Firm tool inventories come from the Legal IT Insider UK 200 survey (2025) plus firm-published AI announcements.
Potential overlap: a firm has potential overlap in a capability when it holds two or more tools at core or supported depth. Cost is the sum of per-FE mid-band list pricing across overlapping tools — public-data estimates, not your actual procurement spend.
This is a modelled estimate, not a forecast. Variance from real outcomes is typically ±40%. A consultant-delivered deep-dive replaces public pricing with your actual spend and produces a board-grade rationalisation plan.
How Alt-V handles the data you enter
Data controller
Altruistic Ventures Law Advisors (trading as Alt-V Law) is the data controller for any firm-specific information you enter into this calculator, including edits to your firm's technology stack.
What is collected
Your firm identifier, the tool ticks and unticks you make against your firm's stack, the use cases you select, adoption assumptions, and the resulting estimate. Personal data is limited to what you choose to submit — the calculator does not require a login or email address to run.
Purpose of processing
Two purposes: (i) so Alt-V can follow up with your firm on the estimate as part of ongoing business development, and (ii) to build an aggregated, firm-de-identified benchmarking dataset across participating firms. Benchmarking outputs never identify your firm.
Lawful basis (UK GDPR)
Legitimate interests (Article 6(1)(f)) — running and improving a B2B benefits estimation service for legal-sector clients — and, where you provide your details for follow-up, consent (Article 6(1)(a)).
Australian Privacy Principles
Collection is limited to what is necessary for the two purposes above (APP 3); we notify you at the point of collection (APP 5); we use and disclose only for the notified purposes or as required by law (APP 6); we hold data securely (APP 11); you may request access or correction (APPs 12 and 13).
Storage & retention
Alt-V retains firm-entered data for 24 months from the date of collection. At the end of that period Alt-V will re-confirm with the firm whether to continue holding the data; otherwise it is deleted.
Security
Data is stored on Alt-V's servers, encrypted in transit (HTTPS) and at rest, and access is restricted to Alt-V personnel who need it for the two purposes above.
Your rights
You may request access, rectification, erasure, restriction, portability, or objection at any time. To exercise any right, or to withdraw consent for follow-up, email derek.duffy@altruisticventures.com.
Complaints
UK: Information Commissioner's Office (ico.org.uk). Australia: Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (oaic.gov.au).