If I was a Lawyer, AI Tools Would Confuse Me
The legal AI market looks like the saas platform boom in the early 2010s. A cacophony of well-funded startups and incumbents all screaming "AI!" from the rooftops, pointing to a dozen different features that all sound vaguely similar. It's a classic technology-first, customer-second land grab. And just like most booms, the winners won't be the ones with the most features. They'll be the ones who actually bother to solve a real, painful business problem for a specific type of customer.
Now, let's look at what your legal AI competitors are doing. It's a masterclass in generic, feature-led marketing that is talking company first, customer second. And an even bigger challenge is that all the competitors do similar, and sometimes slightly different things. So as a consumer, it is even more challenging to weave through the various value props.
I looked at a few companies here, not all of them. I’m not playing favourites, just pointing out some observations and opportunities. If you are offended, please reach out to yell at me here.
Legal AI Positioning: A Symphony of Sameness
I went and looked at how these companies describe themselves. Close your eyes, and you can barely tell them apart. They are classic examples of dressing up tactics as strategy.
Harvey.ai: "Ask questions, analyze documents, and draft faster with domain-specific AI." and then lists solutions for "Transactional", "Litigation", "In-House". This is a classic "we're a horizontal platform for everyone" play. It's the equivalent of a restaurant claiming to make the "world's best food"—covering everything from sushi to pizza. It's not a strategy; it's a list of capabilities. For whom? Why? What specific, hair-on-fire problem are they solving? It's left to the imagination.
Clio: Their mission is to "Transform the Legal Experience for All." All? Really? The solo practitioner fighting traffic tickets and the M&A partner at a global firm? This is a noble, but ultimately useless, marketing statement. It's so broad it's meaningless. They are selling a vague future, not a concrete solution to a present-day problem.
Alexi.ai: "The legal AI platform securing your firm's advantage." and "Intuitive, conversational AI for research, strategy, drafting, and review across your entire team." Again, this is feature-speak. What advantage? For what kind of firm? In what specific practice area? It's a collection of nouns and verbs that sound impressive but lack any real point of view.
Spellbook: "Spellbook is a legal AI that assists transactional lawyers in drafting, reviewing, and analyzing contracts efficiently." This is getting warmer, at least they've picked a lane ("transactional lawyers"). But it's still focused on the what (drafting, reviewing), not the why. What is the business impact for that transactional lawyer? Is it reducing deal risk? Is it helping them close deals faster to increase client throughput? It's still a tool in search of a business case.
LexisNexis & Westlaw (The Incumbents): Their messaging is all about adding AI onto their existing research platforms. "Expedite your most complex legal research tasks" (Westlaw) or "[AI] combined with authoritative LexisNexis content" (LexisNexis). Their strategy is defensive. They are selling reassurance to their existing customers: "Don't worry, we have AI too!" It's a feature extension, not a fundamental rethinking of the customer's problem.
The Gap: Not a single one of them has the courage to say, "We are the best in the world at helping intellectual property litigators in California win summary judgment motions." or "We help solo immigration lawyers process twice as many asylum applications with zero errors."(Those are both a bit dramatic, but you get the point). They are all stuck selling the hammer (AI), not the beautifully built house it can create.
In branding and positioning, making these calls is tough as it may feel like you are limiting your market - but who and what you stand for is critical for differentiation and how to establish your authority.
Their Content: A Library of "What is AI?" Blog Posts
If their positioning is generic, their content marketing is even milk and toast. It's a sea of shallow, SEO-driven articles that do nothing to build authority or solve real problems. They are all writing for a Google algorithm, not a stressed-out partner worrying about their firm's profitability. Granted, this is the great first step in establishing a marketing presence, but let’s get to the stuff that really establishes your authority.
I did a quick survey of some posts. Here's a taste of the intellectual porridge being served up:
Clio's Blog: "AI in Law: Transforming Legal Practices" and "Harvey AI for Legal Professionals: Features, Benefits and More." These are 101-level explainers. Any lawyer sophisticated enough to consider a six-figure software investment does not need an article explaining what AI is. This is content for interns, not decision-makers. It's a classic sign of a marketing team chasing keywords instead of customers.
Westlaw's Blog: "Balancing innovation and caution: How lawyers should integrate AI into legal practice." This is the kind of title that screams "we have nothing new to say." It's a fence-sitting, thought-leadership-by-committee piece that offers no real, actionable advice. It's designed to be inoffensive and, as a result, is completely unmemorable.
Spellbook's Blog: "7 Best Legal AI Tools for Lawyers & Law Firms in 2025 (Most Recommended)". The irony is palpable. They are so busy trying to capture search traffic for "best legal AI tools" that they're just reinforcing the idea that this is a confusing, undifferentiated market. This is stuff you need to do to feed the algorithm and AI citations, but let’s get to the juicy thought leadership stuff.
The Uncomfortable Path You Must Take to Differentiate:
Your content can't be about AI. It has to be about your customer's business. Instead of "What is Legal AI?" you need to be publishing:
"The Annual Real Estate Litigation Benchmark Report: A Data-Driven Analysis of Case Outcomes and Billing Rates in New York."
A podcast interview series with the managing partners of the 10 fastest-growing personal injury firms in the Southeast.
"We Analyzed 10,000 M&A Deals: This One Clause Is the Biggest Source of Post-Closing Litigation."
This is content that a partner will not only read but will forward to their entire team. It builds authority. It generates leads. It proves you understand their world better than anyone else. It's hard to create, which is why your competitors are churning out fluff. This is your opening - to establish your brand positioning as different in the category and solving real problems.
Stop looking at the tech. Look at the customer. Their pain, their business model, their ambitions. The market isn't crowded with great solutions; it's crowded with generic tools. Be the one company that has a clear, uncomfortable, and highly valuable point of view. That's how you win.