Buying Process
How should we structure a litigation-tech contract to de-risk it?
Updated July 2026
Structure it so risk transfers to the vendor, not you. Gate the term in phases with defined success criteria tied to adoption, require data-export and portability rights in writing, attach a security addendum, and set a real support SLA. Keep the initial term short with no automatic renewal, so the platform earns its place before you commit further.
What contract structure actually de-risks a litigation-tech purchase?
De-risking is contract design, not commercial negotiation. Build in five protections: phase gating so you can stop between stages, success criteria tied to real adoption, data-portability and export rights, a support SLA with response commitments, and a security addendum covering privileged material. Keep the first term short. Each clause moves a specific risk off your side of the table.
- Phase gating: define stages with exit points, so a stalled rollout ends the contract instead of locking you in.
- Success criteria: tie renewal to measurable adoption by your claims team and defense counsel, not to a go-live date.
- Data rights: written export and portability terms so your structured litigation data leaves with you in a usable format.
- Support SLA: named response times, escalation paths, and named accountability, not best-efforts language.
- Security addendum: access controls, data segregation, retention, and audit coverage for privileged work product.
How should phase gating and success criteria work?
Split the engagement into stages that each have an exit. Start with a scoped pilot on a defined slice of your litigated book, set the success criteria before it begins, and make the move to full rollout contingent on hitting them. Tie renewal to adoption you can measure, not to a calendar date, so the platform proves value at every gate.
- Pilot stage: run the platform on a defined slice of live litigated files with success criteria agreed in writing first.
- Gate review: measure adoption and output against those criteria before any expansion, with a clean exit if they are not met.
- Full rollout: expand scope only after the gate passes, keeping the right to pause if adoption stalls.
- Renewal gate: base every renewal on measured adoption, so continued spend always follows demonstrated use.
Why do data-portability and export clauses matter most?
Because your litigation data is the asset, and lock-in is the risk. A litigation platform structures years of counsel work product into scored, queryable records. Without a written export right, that structured data becomes a reason you cannot leave. Require portability in a usable, documented format, on demand and at exit, so switching stays your decision rather than the vendor's leverage.
- Export format: structured, documented, and machine-readable, not a PDF dump or a locked proprietary file.
- Timing: export on demand during the term and a full extract at termination, within a defined window.
- Scope: all your structured litigation records and underlying documents, not just a summary view.
- No hostage clause: export rights survive disputes and cannot be withheld over any billing disagreement.
What belongs in the SLA, support, and security addenda?
Specifics, not assurances. The SLA should name uptime, response times by severity, and escalation paths. Support terms should name who you reach, how fast, and what counts as resolved. The security addendum should cover privileged material directly: access controls, data segregation, retention, breach notification, and audit rights. Ask for current, evidence-backed security documentation rather than a promise, and read it before signing.
| Term | What to require | Risk it transfers |
|---|---|---|
| SLA | Uptime target, response times by severity, escalation path | Downtime and slow response become the vendor's problem |
| Support | Named contacts, defined response windows, resolution definition | You are not left chasing best-efforts help |
| Security addendum | Access controls, data segregation, retention, breach notice, audit rights | Privileged work product stays protected and provable |
| Data export | On-demand and at-exit extract in a documented format | Lock-in stops being a switching cost |
How should term length and auto-renewal be set?
Keep the first term short and kill the automatic renewal. A short initial term with an explicit, opt-in renewal forces the platform to re-earn the relationship on adoption, not on inertia. Auto-renewal quietly converts a stalled rollout into a multi-year commitment. Replace it with a renewal decision tied to the success criteria you already defined, and require notice windows that favor you.
- Short initial term: long enough to prove adoption, short enough that a bad fit is not a multi-year problem.
- Opt-in renewal: renewal is an affirmative decision tied to success criteria, never an automatic rollover.
- Notice windows: cancellation notice periods sized in your favor, not a narrow trap that renews by default.
- No penalty for the exit you designed: leaving at a defined gate is a planned outcome, not a breach.
Common questions
Should the contract require a pilot before full rollout?
Yes, and the pilot should be written into the contract, not left as a handshake. Structure the engagement so a scoped pilot runs on a defined slice of your live litigated book, with success criteria agreed in writing before it begins. Make the expansion to full rollout contingent on hitting those criteria, and keep a clean exit if they are missed. This turns the highest-risk assumption, that the platform will actually get adopted by your claims team and defense counsel, into a tested fact before you commit budget or scope. A litigation layer evaluates on counsel work product, so the pilot needs no integration build to prove value. The pilot clause is the single most effective de-risking move in the whole agreement, because it converts a promise into evidence at your defined gate.
How long does implementation take?→What data-export language protects us from vendor lock-in?
Require a written, unconditional export right. The clause should let you extract all your structured litigation data and underlying documents on demand during the term and in full at termination, within a defined window, in a documented and machine-readable format. Avoid language that limits export to summaries, PDFs, or a proprietary file only the vendor can read. Make the right survive any billing dispute, so data can never be held as leverage. The reason this matters more in litigation tech than in most software is that the platform's value is the structured record it builds from years of counsel work product. If that record cannot leave in a usable form, the switching cost becomes a lock, and the vendor holds it. Written portability keeps the decision to stay or go yours.
Migrating matters when you switch systems→How do we tie success criteria to adoption rather than a go-live date?
Define what good use looks like, then measure it. A go-live date only proves the software turned on. Adoption criteria prove people are working in it: what share of litigated files are scored and current, whether defense counsel work product is flowing in, whether claims staff are acting on what they see. Write two or three of those as the gate for expansion and renewal, agree on how each is measured, and set the review date. Tie continued spend to hitting them. This protects you from the common failure where a platform is technically live but functionally ignored, and the contract renews anyway. Adoption-based criteria also align the vendor with the outcome you actually bought, because they only expand the relationship when the platform is genuinely in use.
The litigation intelligence maturity curve→Do we need our own security review if the vendor has a security addendum?
Yes. The addendum sets contractual obligations, but your security and IT teams still need to review the platform against the same bar they apply to anything touching privileged material. Have them examine access controls, data segregation, retention, breach notification, and audit coverage, and ask for current, evidence-backed documentation rather than a marketing claim. The review runs on documents and meetings, not on engineering capacity, so it does not compete with other IT work. The point of pairing the addendum with your own review is that one makes the vendor accountable in writing and the other confirms the reality behind the language before privileged work product ever moves. Never sign a security addendum you have not read against your own requirements.
The security review a litigation platform requires→CaseGlide is the litigation intelligence platform for Fortune 500 legal departments and insurance claims organizations. It structures live litigation data from defense counsel into executive decisions: reducing defense spend, settling the right cases sooner, and shrinking litigated claim volume.
Next step · See it on your docket
See what your litigation portfolio is telling you
A 30 minute walkthrough on your own docket. No slides, no committee.