Along
with
yesterday’s
announcement
of
new
AI
features,
Thomson
Reuters
quietly
mentioned
a
revised
commercial
model
that
purportedly
will
allow
customers
to
benefit
from
new
advancements
in
Thomson
Reuters’
products.
The
newest
AI
offering,
CoCounsel
Legal,
will
be
offered
through
multiyear
subscriptions
with
“mostly”
increased
annual
fees.
According
to
TR,
these
subscriptions
will
include
continual
upgrades
at
no
additional
cost.
Admittedly,
it
sounds
a
little
cryptic.
But
if
I’m
following
the
idea
correctly,
the
concept
is
similar
to
Microsoft
365:
you
pay
a
subscription
and
then
as
upgrades
occur,
your
cost
goes
up
some
but
you
automatically
get
the
upgrade.
The
concept
addresses,
at
least
marginally,
a
couple
of
problems
most
legal
vendors
present
to
their
customers,
particularly
when
it
comes
to
AI-related
offerings,
at
least
in
my
opinion.
Secret
Pricing
The
first
is
pricing.
With
most
products,
you
ask
the
price,
and
you
get
an
answer.
With
legal
tech
products,
particularly
subscription-based
ones,
you
get
a
lawyer
answer:
“It
depends.
But
let
me
demo
the
product
for
you
and
you
can
use
it
for
a
bit
and
then
we
will
talk
price.”
That’s
like
a
car
dealer
saying,
“I
can’t
tell
you
the
price
of
the
car
but
hop
in
for
a
test
drive.
Better
yet,
keep
it
for
a
week
or
two
and
then
come
back
and
I’ll
let
you
know
the
price
after
I
find
out
more
about
you.”
The
vendors
will
claim
they
need
to
understand
your
usage
patterns
before
discussing
price.
I
suspect
it’s
more
about
customizing
deals
based
on
who’s
asking
and
how
much
they
think
you
can
pay.
Legal
tech
customers
are
often
left
playing
the
Price
is
Right
to
get
any
idea
of
cost.
Over
Segmentation
The
second
problem
in
my
view
is
product
line
proliferation
or
over
segmentation.
Most
of
the
leading
legal
vendors
offer
so
many
products
that
do
similar
things,
it’s
hard
to
keep
track
of.
And
each
slightly
different
product
often
comes
with
a
higher
price
point.
LexisNexis,
for
example,
offers
Lexis+,
Lexis+AI,
Protégé,
Lexis
Create+,
and
Lex
Machina,
all
of
which
do
some
sort
of
AI
legal
research
and
analytics.
TR
offers
Practical
Law,
Checkpoint
Edge,
Westlaw
Classic,
Westlaw
Edge,
Westlaw
Precision
with
CoCounsel,
HighQ,
CoCounsel
Core,
and
now
CoCounsel
Legal.
Another
legal
tech
provider,
vLex,
offers
Vincent
AI,
vLex
Analytics,
Docket
Alarm,
Fastcase
Legal
Research,
vLex
Legal
Research,
Next
Chapter,
QuoLaw,
and
a
slew
of
other
offerings
according
to
its
website,
It’s
enough
to
make
your
head
spin.
But
Why??
The
vendors
got
into
this
in
part
due
to
the
rapid
advancements
in
AI
and
wanting
to
appear
to
stay
ahead
of
the
competition.
And
because
they
wanted
to
charge
customers
extra
for
each
new
advancement.
Since
the
advancements
were
coming
at
such
a
fast
and
furious
pace,
the
vendors
just
added
a
new
product
with
a
new
name
each
time
there
was
an
advancement,
even
if
it
was
slight.
Each
of
these
developments
was
a
separate
a
la
carte
menu
item.
The
result?
A
technological
arms
race
that
had
customers
dazed
and
confused.
Quite
frankly,
I
write
about
this
stuff
and
talk
to
vendors
regularly
and
even
I
can’t
keep
track
of
this
stuff.
And
pricing
that
was
just
as
confusing
and
non-transparent.
A
customer
could
buy
some
or
all
of
the
menu
items
but
the
price
in
many
cases
was
negotiable
as
the
AI
vendors
raced
to
procure
an
increased
customer
base
for
their
rapidly
developing
AI
product
base.
In
their
efforts
to
stay
ahead,
they
came
out
with
advancements
that
really
didn’t
offer
that
much
different
but
were
hyped
as
a
big
advance.
So,
pricing
could
likely
be
a
little
flexible.
The
Problem
for
Lawyers
For
lots
of
law
firms,
this
array
of
products
and
models
and
unclear
pricing
presents
an
issue.
For
larger
firms,
IT
personnel
will
likely
be
dealing
with
the
vendor
and
may
understand
the
offerings.
But
they
then
have
to
explain
them
to
the
lawyers
making
the
final
decision
who
have
neither
the
time
nor
interest
in
understanding
the
nuances
and
differences
in
the
various
products.
So,
they
either
buy
none,
some,
or
all
without
really
understanding
what
they
are
getting,
whether
they
really
need
what
they
are
buying,
or
not
buying
what
they
really
need.
Then
when
it’s
time
for
implementation,
the
lawyers
using
the
products
may
be
just
as
confused
and
as
a
result
the
products
go
unused.
The
situation
is
even
worse
in
small
firms
with
limited
or
no
IT
personnel.
Think
about
it.
You’re
a
full-time
practicing
lawyer
and
managing
partner
in
a
small
shop
with
little
time
to
spare.
You
think
you
need
a
set
of
AI
tools.
But
which
ones
and
for
what?
The
first
vendor
you
talk
to
gives
you
five
products
to
pick
from.
A
second
vendor
gives
you
seven.
A
third
vendor
only
gives
you
four.
But
you
can’t
understand
what
they
all
do
or
whether
you
need
all
that
each
vendor
offers.
On
top
of
that,
you
can’t
find
out
the
cost
until
you
at
least
sit
through
multiple
different
demos.
The
problem
is
compounded
by
the
use
of
too
much
tech
jargon
by
vendors
instead
of
plain
English
to
describe
what
their
products
do.
Vendors
sometimes
get
comfortable
talking
to
IT
personnel
who
may
understand
the
jargon
but
forget
that
IT
personnel
have
to
then
describe
the
offerings
to
the
lawyers
who
don’t
know
the
jargon.
It’s
no
wonder
lawyers
have
a
sour
taste
for
technology.
TR’s
New
Plan
The
new
TR
pricing
plan,
if
it
does
what
it
appears
to,
is
at
least
a
step,
albeit
small,
in
the
right
direction.
Buy
one
product
and
then
get
upgrades
instead
of
a
new
product
offering
and
different
name
(with
a
modest
price
increase,
whatever
that
means).
Less
confusion,
less
work
required
to
understand
what
each
new
product
is.
Simpler,
cleaner.
Some
sanity
in
the
AI
arms
race.
When
Steve
Jobs
returned
to
Apple,
the
first
thing
he
did
was
jettison
the
array
of
products
Apple
was
offering
to
a
confused
customer
base.
Perhaps
legal
tech
vendors
should
do
the
same.
The
legal
profession
is
already
skeptical
of
technology;
clarity
and
simplicity
aren’t
just
nice
to
have,
they’re
essential.
Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger,
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.