Build vs Buy: The Great Debate Reshaping Indian Law Firms in 2025

Admin ILTN
Sep 2
7 min read

Recently, we posed a simple question to our legal technology community that unleashed a fascinating debate. What started as a casual poll about the Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. & Legora partnership and Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co.'s collaboration with Harvey quickly evolved into something much deeper—a window into the strategic soul-searching happening across Indian law firms in 2025.

The responses we received weren't just opinions; they were battle-tested insights from professionals navigating one of the most transformative periods in legal history. As one community member perfectly summed it up: "One shoe size cannot fit everyone :)" - and that simple truth has profound implications for how Indian law firms approach technology adoption.

The Current Landscape: AI Adoption Reaches a Tipping Point

2025 has emerged as the year when AI adoption in law firms crossed from experimental to essential, with roughly 79% of law firms now integrating AI into their workflows, primarily for document review, research, and contract analysis. This isn't happening in isolation—the legal industry is undergoing a massive evolution, driven by agentic AI that has finally become smart enough to make change inevitable.

The Indian legal landscape is experiencing this transformation firsthand. Major firms like Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas and Khaitan & Co have already developed or partnered with AI platforms tailored for legal workflows, significantly boosting productivity. Meanwhile, startups like Jhana.ai, which recently raised $1.6 million, and DecoverAI, which secured $2 million in seed funding, are building AI-powered tools specifically for Indian lawyers and law firms.

The Four Archetypes: Understanding Your Firm's Position

Our community discussion revealed four distinct approaches that Indian law firms are taking toward the build vs buy decision. Each represents a different strategic philosophy shaped by resources, risk tolerance, and long-term vision.

1. The Risk-Conscious Controllers

These firms approach technology adoption with the wariness of seasoned litigators examining a contract. They prefer solutions they can control completely, driven by legitimate concerns about workflow disruptions and client confidentiality. Their primary fear isn't cost—it's loss of control over critical processes.

Why they lean toward building: Complete customization, data sovereignty, and the ability to modify systems as regulations change. In India's complex regulatory environment, this control can be particularly valuable.

The reality check: As our community member astutely noted, "If you're doing too many things, you're not doing anything." Building comprehensive legal tech requires sustained focus and expertise that most law firms simply don't possess.

2. The Resource-Rich Strategists

These are the firms with deep pockets but lean tech teams. They understand that having money doesn't automatically translate to having the right people or processes to build effective technology solutions. They're strategic buyers, looking for scalable solutions that align with long-term business goals.

Their approach: Partner with established vendors, but demand significant customization and integration support. They're willing to pay premium prices for premium service and ongoing development.

The sweet spot: Working with vendors who can build custom solutions without disrupting core business operations, as suggested by our community discussion.

3. The Hybrid Innovators

Perhaps the most interesting group, these firms are experimenting with custom-built models tailored to their unique workflows. They're developing plug-and-play systems that can evolve with their needs—essentially creating internal platforms that can integrate with external tools as needed.

Their strategy: Build core infrastructure internally while buying specialized tools and integrations. This approach allows for maximum flexibility while avoiding the complexity of building everything from scratch.

The challenge: Requires significant internal tech expertise and ongoing maintenance—resources that many firms underestimate.

4. The Cautious Evaluators

The largest group in our ecosystem, these firms are still in the trial phase. They're attending demos, testing products, and building evaluation frameworks. Even when they find tools they like, adoption often stalls due to cash flow concerns or leadership hesitation.

Their reality: Many are simply focused on daily operations while searching for solutions that check all their boxes. As our community member observed, adoption remains slow because they're looking for perfect fits rather than good enough solutions they can adapt to.

The Indian Context: Unique Challenges and Opportunities

Indian law firms face a distinct set of challenges that influence the build vs buy decision:

Regulatory Complexity

India's evolving data protection laws and regulatory requirements create a compelling case for solutions that can be quickly adapted. The flexibility to modify systems as regulations change becomes a strategic advantage.

Cost Sensitivity

While global firms might readily invest in six-figure technology solutions, Indian firms often operate with tighter margins. The total cost of ownership—including training, maintenance, and upgrades—becomes a critical factor.

Talent Availability

India's strong technology talent pool makes building custom solutions more feasible than in many other markets. However, retaining tech talent within law firms remains challenging when technology companies offer more attractive compensation packages.

Client Expectations

Indian clients, particularly in the corporate sector, increasingly expect their legal advisors to leverage technology for efficiency and cost-effectiveness. This creates pressure to adopt advanced tools quickly.

The Hidden Costs of Building

Our community discussion highlighted a crucial insight often overlooked in the build vs buy debate: the true cost of building goes far beyond initial development.

The Innovation Gap

As one community member pointed out, "their built tech will never be able to cope up with the innovation that tech companies would do because of their focus on tech." Specialized legal tech companies can dedicate entire teams to staying ahead of AI developments, while law firms must balance this with their core legal practice.

The Distraction Factor

Building technology solutions requires sustained attention from senior partners and key lawyers—attention that could otherwise be focused on client service and business development. The opportunity cost is often higher than the monetary cost.

The Maintenance Reality

Custom-built solutions require ongoing maintenance, security updates, and feature development. Many firms underestimate these recurring costs and the expertise needed to manage them effectively.

The Case for Strategic Buying

The most successful firms in our ecosystem have discovered that buying doesn't mean compromising on customization. Instead, they've learned to be strategic about what they buy and how they integrate it.

Partnership Over Purchase

Rather than simply buying off-the-shelf solutions, leading firms are forming deep partnerships with legal tech providers. This approach combines the benefits of specialized expertise with the customization needed for unique workflows.

Hybrid Solutions

The most sophisticated firms are adopting a hybrid approach—building internal platforms for core processes while integrating best-in-class external tools for specialized functions. This strategy maximizes both control and innovation.

The Integration Imperative

Success with bought solutions depends heavily on integration capabilities. Firms that invest in strong internal tech infrastructure can effectively combine multiple external tools into cohesive workflows.

Looking Forward: The 2025 Paradigm

The current wave of partnerships and acquisitions in legal tech is being driven primarily by the need to expand AI capabilities for customers. This trend suggests that even the largest legal tech providers recognize they can't build everything in-house.

The implications for Indian law firms are clear:

Focus on Core Competencies

The most successful firms will be those that double down on their legal expertise while partnering strategically for technology capabilities. The goal isn't to become technology companies—it's to become technology-enabled law firms.

Collaborative Innovation

The future belongs to firms that can collaborate effectively with technology partners to create solutions that neither could develop alone. This requires a shift from vendor relationships to partnership mindsets.

Continuous Adaptation

Whether building or buying, firms must develop the capability to continuously adapt their technology solutions. The pace of AI development means that today's cutting-edge tool may be tomorrow's legacy system.

Practical Framework: Making the Decision

Based on our community insights and market observations, here's a framework for making the build vs buy decision:

Choose to Build When:

You have truly unique workflows that no existing solution addresses
You possess strong internal tech capabilities and can sustain long-term development
Data sovereignty requirements make external solutions impractical
The potential competitive advantage justifies the investment and risk

Choose to Buy When:

Established solutions exist that address 80% of your needs
You lack internal tech expertise or prefer to focus on core legal work
Speed to market is critical for competitive positioning
The total cost of ownership favors external solutions

Choose Hybrid When:

You need both customization and access to cutting-edge capabilities
You have some internal tech capacity but not enough for comprehensive solutions
Different practice areas have significantly different technology needs
You want to maintain optionality for future strategic directions

The Wisdom of the Community

Perhaps the most valuable insight from our community discussion came from recognizing that this isn't really a binary choice. As one member noted, the solution often lies in having legal tech vendors build for particular firms without disrupting their core business.

This collaborative approach—where firms contribute domain expertise while technology partners provide technical capabilities—may well define the next phase of legal innovation in India.

The firms that thrive in 2025 and beyond won't be those that made the "right" choice between building and buying. They'll be the firms that developed the capability to make strategic technology decisions quickly, implement solutions effectively, and adapt continuously as the landscape evolves.

Conclusion: Beyond Build vs Buy

Our community's vibrant discussion revealed that the build vs buy debate is ultimately about something deeper than technology procurement—it's about strategic vision, resource allocation, and competitive positioning in a rapidly evolving market.

The most successful Indian law firms of 2025 are those that have moved beyond the false binary of build versus buy to embrace a more nuanced approach: strategic partnership, continuous adaptation, and relentless focus on client value.

As agentic AI continues its quiet revolution that's reshaping everything, the firms that survive and thrive will be those that learned to dance with technology rather than wrestle with it.

The conversation in our community proved one thing conclusively: there's no one-size-fits-all answer to the build vs buy question. But there is a one-size-fits-all requirement for success—the willingness to engage thoughtfully with these decisions and learn continuously from both successes and failures.

What matters most isn't whether you build or buy, but whether you build the organizational capability to make these decisions wisely and implement them effectively. In that sense, every firm—regardless of their technology choices—is in the business of building: building expertise, building partnerships, and building the future of legal practice in India.