Independent
No vendor sponsorship or commercial influence.
Practitioner-shaped
Shaped by buy-side legal, AI, and technology leaders.
Open-source
Publicly available and community-driven.
The Problem
Why Legal AI Procurement is Broken
0%*
Of legal teams are not committed to their current AI vendor.
Many legal teams are still searching for tools that meet their needs.
0%*
Of legal teams evaluate AI tools without IT or security involvement.
Many procurement decisions happen without a structured technical review.
0+**
AI tools now target legal teams.
Many promise similar capabilities, making meaningful vendor comparison difficult.
The result: months of duplicated effort, inconsistent evaluation, and decisions driven by demos and marketing rather than evidence.
The Solution
The Legal AI Evaluation Framework
The Legal AI Evaluation Framework is the legal community's first open-access evaluation framework built to help legal teams make defensible, evidence-based procurement decisions.
100+
Legal leaders across 82 organizations and law firms
25
Countries represented
100
Evaluation sub-tests across 8 core criteria
Evaluation Criteria
The 8 Core Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation Toolkit
The 3 Stages of Legal AI Evaluation
Like hiring a knowledge worker, each stage of evaluating a legal AI tool demands a different level of scrutiny. The Evaluation Toolkit turns the Legal AI Evaluation Framework into practical tools for buyers at each stage of evaluation.
Getting Started
How to Use This Toolkit
This toolkit applies whether you are:
- Starting a new search for a legal AI tool
- Midway through vendor conversations and need structure
- Running a pilot and need a consistent way to compare tools
- Reassessing or renewing a contract with your current provider
Researching tools?
Start with the Pre-Demo Checklist (Stage 1)
Sitting in demos?
Use the Demo Scorecard (Stage 2)
Trialing a tool?
Use the Pilot Scorecard (Stage 3)
Starting from scratch? Work through all 3 stages in order.
Then make it yours. Adapt criteria based on your team's priorities. The toolkits are starting points, not rigid templates. Every legal team operates differently. The framework gives you the structure — you decide what matters most.
Timeline & Roadmap
How We Built This
This framework was built from the ground up by the people who actually do this work.
Framework Development
CompleteNovember to December 2025
Synthesised legal AI evaluation approaches used in real vendor selection processes and assembled the first draft of the framework.
Community Feedback
CompleteFebruary 21, 2026
Opened the draft for community input. More than 100 legal leaders contributed feedback.
v1 Finalisation
CompleteLate February 2026
Incorporated community feedback into Version 1 of the Legal AI Evaluation Framework and the accompanying Evaluation ToolKit.
Publication and Launch
LiveMarch 11, 2026
Public release of the Legal AI Evaluation Framework v1, together with the practical toolkits that operationalise the framework for real evaluation workflows.
What Comes Next
OngoingFrom March 2026
Gathering post-launch feedback and releasing additional practical resources, including a vendor questionnaire, the evaluation framework report, a quick-reference cheat sheet, and community insights.
This is a living framework. It will evolve as the tools, the models, and the market change. Want to shape what comes next?
The Team
Built by Practitioners Across Legal, IT, Security, and Privacy
This framework is built and maintained by legal professionals, technologists, security experts, and privacy specialists.
Core Team
Designed and published the framework. Responsible for day-to-day development, content, and coordination.
Founder, Legal Benchmarks
Over the past 13 months, Anna has benchmarked AI performance in real legal workflows alongside 500+ legal professionals. That work has shaped hundreds of procurement decisions around AI tooling.
LinkedIn
Technologist & Former Lawyer
Led legal AI procurement and evaluated 40+ tools last year. Brings an end-to-end view of AI assessment, from screening and testing to piloting and making the final tool decision.
LinkedIn
General Counsel
Focused on data security and operational risk in AI systems. Pushes the team to ask the questions most organisations miss around security, safety, and deployment risk.
LinkedIn
Comms Lead
Leads communications and PR for the framework. Brings experience in legal and professional services communications to help the community understand and engage with the project.
LinkedInAdvisory Board
Senior leaders from legal, technology, AI governance, and security who guide strategic decisions, share their perspective on new directions, and review drafts before they go public.
Alexandra Robins
GC, Reptune
Andie Garford-Tull
General Counsel, AI Transformation and Governance, Dentsu
Andrew Greenfeld
Head of Legal Operations, Zoom
Blake Hei
General Counsel, Hoyoverse
Celia Reinsvold
Director, Legal AI Transformation
Daniel Lönnberg
Head of Data and Innovation, Familjens Jurist i Sverige AB
Danylo Panov
Head of Legal Operations, Romexsoft
Gary Ang, PHD
ex-MAS AI Risk Lead & Investment Risk Head
Jason Tamara Widjaja
Executive AI Director
Jean Li
APAC General Counsel, Rapyd
Johan Granqvist
Head of Legal and Compliance, Swarmia
Laura Jeffords Greenberg
General Counsel, Worksome
Marc Mandel
General Counsel, Exos
Nada Alnajafi
Legal Ops Leader & Senior Corporate Counsel, Franklin Templeton
Nicolas Alejandro Panigutti
Legal Manager, Global Legal Transformation Team, Santander
Stephanie Dominy
General Counsel and Head of Ops, Tessl
Tara Herman
Senior Vice President, Deputy General Counsel, Girl Scouts of the USA
Timm Ernst
Head of Legal Tech Group, Henkel
Victor Green
Vice President, Contracts Services, Morgan Stanley
Weng Yip
Vice President, Legal, Razer Inc.
Steering Committee
A broader group of practitioners across legal, IT, security, and privacy who validate and shape the assessment criteria, review and give feedback on the framework, and publicly signal support. All members are acknowledged in the published v1 guideline and toolkit.
Aalia Manie
Ahmet Guler
Alicia Larrazabal Erminy
Anastasiia Chiganov-Zalesskaia
Andrada Popescu
Annemarie Brennan
Arjen Eeken
Arthur Souza Rodrigues
Azhar Aziz-Ismail
Bensu Aydin
Bert Vries
Carlos Eduardo Vieira Costa de Lamare
Carrie Stephenson
Charlie Morgan
Chris Werner
Claudio Bild
Claudio Klaus
Damian Tommasino
Dana Kempler
Dana Kretschmer-Konzal
Daniella Domokos
Denisa Kopandi
Dick van Lankeren Matthes
Douwe Groenevelt
Elena Tzvetinova
Elizabeth Evans
Emelie Wesselink
Eric Lystrup
Fiona Q. Nguyen
Gayk Ayvazyan
Grant Ramsey
Hugo Chow
Jan-Willem Prakke
Jennifer Sing
Joep Feringa
Jolanda Rose
Jonathan Savar
Joseph Zeke Rucker
Kars van Houten
Kevan Wee
Kim Humphrey
Lasse Milinski
Lien Tran
Luara Locateli
Lucia Loyo
Mark Zijlstra
Martin Woodward
Matthew Kohel
Maxim Svyatov
Meena Parbhu
Meeta Agarwal
Melissa Köhler-van der Hulst
Michael Odo
Mohamed Al Mamari
Nate Kostelnik
Olivia Singh
Pim Betist
Prapti Patel
Rebecca Gwilt
Robert Brosgill
Robert Jweinat
Robin Musch
Rok Popov Ledinski
Rutger Lambriex
Sarah R. Moros
Shaik Ashfaq
Siavash Shamskho
Spencer Gusick
Sven van de Kamp
Tommaso Ricci
Tunaseli Kamburoglu
Waridah Makena
Wei Yee Tan
Xuan Ming Tan
Zehra Sahin
and more
FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
Newsletter
Stay updated
Get behind-the-scenes updates, contribution opportunities, and report updates.
* Legal Benchmarks 2026 community survey data; forthcoming AI Evaluation Framework Report.
** December 2025 Legaltech Hub directory/map count of GenAI legal tech solutions
Disclaimer
This framework is a community resource published by Legal Benchmarks, developed with contributions from legal and AI professionals across more than 100 organisations. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal, technical, or professional advice. No contributor, editor, or affiliated organisation accepts liability for decisions made on the basis of this framework. Organisations should adapt the framework to their own context, risk profile, and regulatory environment, and consult qualified professionals before making procurement or deployment decisions.
License
This document may be shared and adapted under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence, provided that Legal Benchmarks is credited as the original source.