Nondisclosure Policy
LEADERS EXPLORING GENERATIVE AI IN LAW
L
A
G
E
L
Participate in the Survey
Purpose and Design Principles
2026 Baretz+Brunelle LLC
Contact
Nondisclosure Policy
Security Documentation
Download All Resources
Case Study Canvas Annotations
Provider Survey Annotations
Client Survey Annotations
Participate
Home
Frequently Asked Questions
L.E.G.A.L. (Leaders Exploring Generative AI in Law) is a permissioned intelligence system designed by LexFusion Intelligence, an arm of Baretz+Brunelle LLC, to reduce duplicative market questionnaires while enabling longitudinal, behavior-grounded benchmarking about GenAI in legal service delivery. This policy exists to make participation safe by default—through de-identification and/or aggregation, consent-driven disclosure, and strict use limitations.
Core principles:
De-identification by default. L.E.G.A.L.’s benchmarking outputs are de-identified and/or aggregated. We do not identify participants in benchmarking outputs unless they affirmatively opt in, in writing, through a separate consent process.
Controlled, client-specific disclosure of provider-identified responses (Questions 1–5 only). Certain Provider Survey responses are designated for client-facing disclosure (e.g., Questions 1–5) but only transmitted where the provider has expressly authorized disclosure to a specific Requesting Client.
Clients’ survey responses are never shared in client-attributable form. Law department responses are not disclosed to providers or other third parties in any client-identified or client-attributable form. Law department responses may be used only in de-identified and/or aggregated benchmarking outputs (including de-identified visualizations where thresholds are met), such as the Composite Market Report.
Persistence with control. Survey responses are retained as an updatable baseline to reduce repeat burden and support longitudinal analysis (with withdrawal options described below).
Key Definitions
LexFusion Intelligence / Program Operator (“we/us”): LexFusion Intelligence, an arm of Baretz+Brunelle LLC, serves as the administrator and operator of L.E.G.A.L.
Participating Client: A law department that participates in the Client Survey and/or requests responses from Participating Providers (i.e., a Requesting Client).
Participating Provider: A firm or legal services provider that participates in the Provider Survey.
Requesting Client: A Participating Client seeking provider responses and related client-specific reporting under a client-specific Provider Acknowledgment.
Client-facing Questions (Provider Survey Questions 1–5): The subset of Provider Survey questions designated for controlled, attributed disclosure to Requesting Clients, subject to the provider’s client-specific Provider Acknowledgment for that Requesting Client.
Client-specific Benchmark Report: A benchmark report delivered only to a Requesting Client that contextualizes Provider Survey responses (Questions 1–16). Where authorized, the report may include provider-attributed views of Questions 1–5 (including comparative views). For Questions 6–16, outputs are de-identified and/or aggregated only, potentially including (where thresholds are met) de-identified visualizations in which individual provider responses may appear as unlabeled points that are not attributable to any identified provider.
Benchmarking Data: Survey data used in de-identified and/or aggregated form for benchmarking and longitudinal analysis, including the de-identified components of client-specific benchmark reporting and the program-wide composite market report.
Composite Market Report: A program-wide report shared with participants that presents benchmarking results only in de-identified and/or aggregated form (including de-identified visualizations where thresholds are met) and does not identify participants (neither included nor excluded) absent express, written opt-in.
What information we collect
2. Client Survey
Provider responses.
Provider-entered primary point of contact (POC) for program administration and notices.
1. Provider Survey
Client responses (used only as Benchmarking Data; never shared as client-attributable responses).
Client-entered primary point of contact (POC) for program administration and notices.
3. Provider contact emails supplied by clients (where provided)
If a Requesting Client supplies provider contact emails to facilitate distribution of the Provider Survey to their providers, those email addresses are used solely to administer the survey for that response cycle and are deleted on the schedule described in Contact information handling and deletion schedule section below.
How Client Survey Responses are Used
Point-of-contact (POC) and collaborator email addresses entered in the Provider and Client surveys are retained solely for L.E.G.A.L. program administration, including survey access management, collaboration enablement, notices related to client-requested fresh releases, and (where applicable) dashboard enablement.
How Client Survey responses are used
Client Survey responses are used only as Benchmarking Data (de-identified/anonymized/ aggregated). Individual client responses are not shared with providers or other third parties.
Use limitations and “no sale” commitment
We do not sell individual participant data. Data collected through L.E.G.A.L. is used solely to:
Contact information handling and deletion schedule
We deliberately limit collection and retention of personally identifiable information (PII), including contact details.
1. Scope of deletion and system boundary
References in this policy to “deletion” of contact information mean deletion of contact records stored in L.E.G.A.L.-specific systems used to administer the program (the “L.E.G.A.L. Program Database” and related survey administration tools). L.E.G.A.L. does not undertake to locate and delete every instance of contact information that may appear in ordinary-course business communications (e.g., email correspondence) or in enterprise backups maintained under standard retention and security practices.
2. Entered point of contact (POC)
POC information entered in the Provider and Client surveys is retained solely for program administration, including notices related to client-requested fresh pulls and/or dashboard enablement.
POC information is not shared with third parties.
If a participant requests withdrawal of a POC or replacement of an administrative contact, we will update or delete that contact record in the L.E.G.A.L. Program Database and cease using the superseded contact for program administration going forward.
3. Client-supplied provider contact emails (for outreach)
Where a Requesting Client supplies provider emails to facilitate distribution to potential Participating Providers, that contact information is used solely to administer the outreach for that response cycle and is then deleted.
Client-supplied provider contact emails (distribution list). Where a Requesting Client supplies provider email addresses to facilitate distribution, those addresses are used solely for outreach and administration for that response cycle and are stored in the L.E.G.A.L. Program Database for that limited purpose. Following the close of the true response period (the stated deadline plus a reasonable follow-up period), those client-supplied email addresses are deleted from the L.E.G.A.L. Program Database, and ongoing administration relies on provider-entered points of contact.
4. No marketing use
Beyond activities directly related to L.E.G.A.L. itself (e.g., live events where case studies are presented), contact information collected for L.E.G.A.L. is used only for L.E.G.A.L. administration (e.g., survey delivery, follow-up, notices of fresh pulls/dashboards) and is not added to marketing lists or repurposed for unrelated outreach.
Data security and internal access controls
We maintain strict internal controls to protect confidentiality and integrity of submitted data, including limiting raw submission access to the core project team and storing contact information separately from composite outputs.
Security controls include encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access control, SSO/MFA protections for admin access, and defined retention/deletion operations for systems and backups.
Attribution, case studies, and publication (opt-in only)
Responses are de-identified by default. Any attributed use (named or anonymously quoted) is handled through a separate, consent-driven pathway, typically via optional case studies, with an explicit multi-step process and no publication without express written approval.
Recipient obligations for controlled disclosures (Questions 1–5)
When a Requesting Client receives provider responses to Questions 1–5 under this policy:
The Requesting Client must treat those responses as confidential provider-to-client information as if the Requesting Client had administered the Provider Survey themselves.
The Requesting Client may use the responses for evaluation and relationship management purposes, but may not redistribute them outside the client organization or use them for marketing, vendor promotion, or public attribution.
Updates to this policy
This initiative will evolve over time—expanding questions, outputs, and delivery mechanisms. What will not change is our commitment to:
Anonymity by default;
Consent for disclosure and attribution;
Protection of participant data; and
Transparency in how insights are used.
Questions, updates, and withdrawal requests
For questions or to update participation preferences (including client-specific withdrawal or program-level withdrawal), contact B+B Intelligence at LFintel@baretzbrunelle.com.
Transmit authorized provider responses to Requesting Clients (Questions 1–5 only);
Produce anonymized benchmarking and trend analysis; and
Support deeper, opt-in opportunities for collaboration (e.g., briefings, working sessions, or case studies) subject to separate consent.
Read the Press Release
Persistent Responses: Responses retained as an ongoing baseline that clients and providers may update over time, rather than re-enter from scratch.
Submission: The act of saving survey responses to the system to enable persistence and collaboration. Submission does not, by itself, authorize release.
Authorization (Survey Acknowledgment): The end-of-survey acknowledgment (checkbox) through which a participant confirms the applicable survey terms. The Client Survey includes a participant acknowledgment; the Provider Survey includes a client-specific acknowledgment when a Requesting Client is involved. Authorization is separate from submission/saving.
Provider Client-specific Authorization: A Provider’s client-specific permission (e.g., checkbox/acknowledgment) that controls whether a particular Requesting Client may receive the Provider’s client-facing extract (Questions 1–5) and any related client-specific reporting that incorporates the Provider’s responses as described in this policy. Provider Client-specific Authorization is separate from submission.
Provider Client-specific Withdrawal: A Provider’s ability to withdraw Provider Client-specific Authorization for a particular Requesting Client without withdrawing from the L.E.G.A.L. program as a whole. Client-specific withdrawal applies prospectively to future client-specific deliveries for that Requesting Client.
Fresh Release: A delivery to a Requesting Client of the then-current client-specific outputs covered by an active client-specific authorization (including the client-facing extract of Questions 1–5 and any client-specific benchmarking outputs), after any applicable notice/update window.
Provider collaborator email addresses (where added) to enable internal collaboration on Provider Survey responses.
Client collaborator email addresses (where added) to enable internal collaboration on Client Survey responses.
How Provider Survey responses are used
Client-facing extract (Provider Survey Questions 1–5 only). Questions 1–5 are designated client-facing and may be disclosed to a Requesting Client only where the Provider has expressly authorized disclosure to that specific Requesting Client. When disclosed, the extract is treated as confidential provider-to-client information, as if the Requesting Client had administered the survey directly, and does not authorize sharing with other clients or third parties.
When a Participating Client requests client-specific outputs, Providers control whether any of their responses are released to that Requesting Client through a single, client-specific Provider Acknowledgment.
Client-specific outputs may include:
Client-specific benchmark reporting (Provider Survey Questions 1–16; hybrid identified + de-identified). Separately and in addition, Provider responses may be used to produce client-specific benchmark reports for the Requesting Client:
Questions 1–5: Where disclosure to that Requesting Client has been authorized, Questions 1–5 may be reflected in provider-attributed form, including in comparative views within the client-specific benchmark report.
Questions 6–16: Individual Provider responses are not disclosed to a Requesting Client in an identifiable (provider-attributable) way. These questions may be reflected only in de-identified and/or aggregated benchmarking outputs, including (where thresholds are met) de-identified visualizations in which individual Provider responses may appear as unlabeled points that are not attributable to any identified Provider.
Participation and dataset completeness transparency (client-specific reporting). Client-specific reports may provide transparency at two levels:
Panel coverage list: a list of (a) Providers included in the client’s report (i.e., Providers that have submitted responses and authorized release to that Requesting Client under a Provider Acknowledgment) and (b) Providers requested by the client but not included (e.g., did not submit and/or did not authorize release to that Requesting Client).
Question-level completeness: within specific benchmarks, identification of which included Providers are not included in that benchmark because they did not answer the relevant question(s). This completeness transparency identifies only non-response, not the substance of any non-client-facing response in provider-attributable form.
Minimum thresholds. L.E.G.A.L. does not present any client-specific segment (including averages) unless at least five (5) providers are included for that question/segment. De-identified dot plots/distributions are shown only when at least twenty (20) providers are included for that question/segment. Below these thresholds, the attendant benchmarks and visualizations simply are not provided.
Fresh Releases + notice. If a Requesting Client asks for a Fresh Release while client-specific authorization is active:
L.E.G.A.L. will provide Providers advance notice and an opportunity (but no obligation) to update their responses before delivery, or to withdraw authorization for that Requesting Client.
Providers are not required to re-acknowledge to keep their authorization active; authorization remains in effect until withdrawn.
Providers may withdraw authorization for any particular client at any time. Such withdrawal:
applies prospectively to future deliveries,
does not require program-level withdrawal, and
does not affect program-wide composite benchmarking and reporting already produced or delivered.
1. Provider Survey
Separately and in addition, Provider responses (including Questions 1–5 in de-identified form, and open-text responses in paraphrased/synthesized form) may be used for program-wide, de-identified and/or aggregated benchmarking and longitudinal analysis across the L.E.G.A.L. community, including the composite market report shared with participants. This use does not create organization-specific visibility or attribution and is not tied to any single Requesting Client.
Providers may request program-level withdrawal from program-wide composite benchmarking and reporting. Withdrawal applies prospectively and does not affect composite benchmarking already produced or delivered.
2. Program-wide composite benchmarking and reporting (de-identified and/or aggregated)
Client Survey responses are used only in de-identified and/or aggregated Benchmarking Data (including, where thresholds are met, de-identified visualizations). Client-identified (client-attributable) responses are not shared with third parties, including providers.
Use limitations and “no sale” commitment
We do not sell, license, or provide third parties with access to individual participant-level data as a commercial product, and we do not sell, rent, or trade contact lists. L.E.G.A.L. does not charge for participation. LexFusion Intelligence may monetize L.E.G.A.L.-related programming and services (including events and advisory/collaboration engagements) based on aggregate insights and de-identified and/or aggregated outputs, not on selling individual responses.
Contact information handling and deletion schedule
We deliberately limit collection and retention of personally identifiable information (PII), including contact details.
1. Scope of deletion and system boundary
References in this policy to “deletion” of contact information mean deletion of contact records stored in L.E.G.A.L.-specific systems used to administer the program (the “L.E.G.A.L. Program Database” and related survey administration tools). L.E.G.A.L. does not undertake to locate and delete every instance of contact information that may appear in ordinary-course business communications (e.g., email correspondence) or in enterprise backups maintained under standard retention and security practices.
2. Participant-entered contacts (POCs and collaborators)
Participant-entered contact information is not shared with third parties for marketing or unrelated outreach but is used for intra-organization coordination. That is, while we do not disclose contact information to third parties, we may use participant-entered contact information to facilitate coordination within your organization (for example, routing subsequent registrations to the organization’s established Primary Point of Contact and connecting colleagues internally).
If a participant requests withdrawal of a contact, replacement of an administrative contact, or removal of a collaborator, we will update or delete that contact record in the L.E.G.A.L. Program Database and cease using the superseded contact for program administration going forward.
3. Client-supplied provider contact emails (for outreach)
Where a Requesting Client supplies provider email addresses to facilitate distribution to potential Participating Providers, those email addresses are used solely to administer outreach and survey operations for that response cycle (e.g., invitations, reminders, and completion tracking).
Following the close of the response period (the stated deadline plus a reasonable follow-up period to complete administration), client-supplied provider email addresses are deleted from the L.E.G.A.L. Program Database, and ongoing administration relies on provider-entered points of contact.
Contact information collected for L.E.G.A.L. is used only for L.E.G.A.L.-related purposes, including program administration (e.g., survey delivery, follow-up, notices of fresh releases/dashboards) and communications about L.E.G.A.L.-related events, briefings, and programming (including events that may be sponsored or ticketed).
We do not sell, rent, or trade contact lists. Contact information collected for L.E.G.A.L. is not added to general marketing lists and is not repurposed for unrelated outreach, business development, or sales efforts outside L.E.G.A.L.
4. No marketing use (outside L.E.G.A.L.)
Data security and internal access controls
We maintain strict internal controls to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of submitted data. Access to raw submissions is limited to the core L.E.G.A.L. project team on a need-to-know basis, with role-based permissions. Contact information (POCs and collaborator emails) is managed separately from benchmarking outputs and reporting datasets.
Security controls include encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access control, SSO/MFA protections for administrative access, audit and monitoring practices appropriate to the platform, and defined retention/deletion operations for L.E.G.A.L.-specific systems (and related backups) consistent with this policy.
Attribution, case studies, and publication (opt-in only)
Responses are de-identified and/or aggregated by default in benchmarking outputs, including de-identified visualizations where thresholds are met. Any attributed use—whether naming a participant or using verbatim quotations (including de-identified quotations)—is handled through a separate, consent-driven pathway (typically via optional case studies), with an explicit multi-step approval process and no publication without express written permission.
For avoidance of doubt:
Provider-identified disclosure to a specific Requesting Client of client-facing Provider Survey responses (Questions 1–5) occurs only where the Provider has authorized release to that Requesting Client under a Provider Acknowledgment.
Optional open-text responses are paraphrased/synthesized for masked, non-attributed insights by default; verbatim use requires express written permission.
The Requesting Client must treat those responses as confidential provider-to-client information as if the Requesting Client had administered the Provider Survey themselves.
The Requesting Client may use the responses for internal evaluation and relationship management purposes, but may not share or redistribute them outside the Requesting Client’s organization (except to its counsel and advisors bound by confidentiality obligations) and may not use them for marketing, vendor promotion, public attribution, or any other external-facing purpose.
Recipient obligations for controlled disclosures (Questions 1–5)
When a Requesting Client receives authorized release of identified provider responses to Questions 1–5 under this policy:
De-identification by default;
Consent-driven disclosure and attribution;
Updates to this policy
This initiative will evolve over time—expanding questions, outputs, and delivery mechanisms. What will not change is our commitment to:
Protection of participant data; and
Transparency in how insights are used.
Questions, updates, and withdrawal requests
For questions or to update participation preferences, contact LexFusion Intelligence at LFIntel@baretzbrunelle.com.
Client-specific outputs (permissioned; client-specific): Controlled disclosure of Provider Survey Questions 1–5 to a specific Requesting Client, only where the Provider has authorized release to that Requesting Client under a Provider Acknowledgment. Client-specific reporting may also include client-specific benchmark reporting across Questions 1–16 (with Questions 1–5 potentially reflected in provider-attributed form where authorized, and Questions 6–16 reflected only in de-identified and/or aggregated form, including de-identified visualizations where thresholds are met).
Addendum - Data Processing Summary (plain English)
This section is intended to answer procurement and privacy questions quickly. It does not expand the scope of this policy; it summarizes it.
The three data buckets and how they are separated
Administrative Contact Data includes point-of-contact information and outreach logistics (e.g., POC and collaborator emails, invitations/reminders, and notice routing). This data is used only to operate L.E.G.A.L., including survey delivery, collaboration enablement, client-specific release workflows, notices (e.g., fresh releases), and participant support.
Survey Response Data consists of organization-level answers. This data is used in the following ways:
Program-wide benchmarking and reporting (de-identified and/or aggregated): De-identified and/or aggregated benchmarking and longitudinal analysis across the L.E.G.A.L. community, including the composite market report shared with participants. No participants are identified in program-wide reporting absent express, written opt-in.
System Access Data consists of limited technical metadata used to protect accounts and administer secure access (e.g., user identifiers, authentication and session logs, access-control events, and related security telemetry). This data is not shared in client-specific disclosures and is not used for benchmarking or reporting.
What a Requesting Client can receive and what it cannot
When a Provider authorizes release to a specific Requesting Client under a Provider Acknowledgment, that Requesting Client may receive only the Provider’s responses to Provider Survey Questions 1–5 in provider-attributed form. That disclosure applies only to that Provider and only to that specific Requesting Client; it does not authorize sharing with other clients or third parties.
A Requesting Client may also receive client-specific benchmark reporting that contextualizes results across Provider Survey Questions 1–16, subject to the visibility limits described in this policy: Questions 6–16 are never disclosed in a provider-attributable form and may be reflected only in de-identified and/or aggregated outputs (including de-identified visualizations where thresholds are met).
The following information is always excluded from any client-facing disclosure or client-specific reporting:
Provider- or client-entered point-of-contact information (including collaborator emails);
Client-supplied provider outreach email lists, if any; and
System Access Data and any other technical or security metadata.
All other Provider Survey responses beyond Questions 1–5 are non-client-facing and are used only in de-identified and/or aggregated form.
What we do not collect—and what participants should not provide
L.E.G.A.L. is designed for behavior-grounded market intelligence about the impact of GenAI on legal service delivery. It is not designed to collect or report client-confidential, matter-specific, or privileged information.
We do not request or intentionally collect privileged content, client-confidential matter facts, or other matter-level materials. We also do not request sensitive personal data, including special-category data, government identification numbers, financial account numbers, or HR/personnel records.
Participants should not include sensitive personal data, privileged content, or client-confidential matter details in any free-text field.
If such information is inadvertently submitted, please contact us promptly at LFIntel@baretzbrunelle.com so we can evaluate appropriate handling consistent with this policy and our security documentation.
Use limitations summary
We do not sell, license, or provide third parties with access to individual participant-level data, and we do not sell or rent contact lists. L.E.G.A.L. does not charge for participation.
L.E.G.A.L. data is used for the following purposes: (i) to transmit provider-authorized, provider-attributed responses to Requesting Clients, limited to Provider Survey Questions 1–5; (ii) to produce de-identified and/or aggregated benchmarking and longitudinal analysis (including client-specific benchmark reporting and the program-wide composite market report, subject to the visibility limits described in this policy); and (iii) to support deeper, opt-in collaboration such as briefings, working sessions, or case studies, subject to separate consent.
For retention and deletion details and system-boundary clarifications, see the section titled Contact information handling and deletion schedule above.
CLICK TO DOWNLOAD A COMPREHENSIVE FILE CONTAINING THE L.E.G.A.L. REFERENCE MATERIALS
Frequently Asked Questions
LEADERS EXPLORING GENERATIVE AI IN LAW
L
A
G
E
L
Participate in the Survey
2026 Baretz+Brunelle LLC
Contact
Nondisclosure Policy
Security Documentation
Download All Resources
Case Study Canvas Annotations
Provider Survey Annotations
Client Survey Annotations
Participate
Home
At a Glance
What it is:
L.E.G.A.L. is a permissioned market-intelligence system built to measure how GenAI is actually changing the economics of legal service delivery. It combines (i) permissioned, client-specific sharing of a limited subset of provider responses (only where the provider authorizes release) with (ii) de-identified or aggregated benchmarking used to produce composite insights.
What it focuses on:
GenAI’s commercial impact—who does the work, how work is allocated and priced, and where legal spend is moving.
What it is not:
L.E.G.A.L. is not a generic survey, an experiment roundup, or a tool inventory. It’s designed to replace fragmented one-off client questionnaires with a coordinated baseline that produces comparable benchmarks.
What’s in the system:
Three instruments, each with a distinct job:
Client Survey (demand-side expectations)
Provider Survey (supply-side reality)
Case Study Canvas (optional follow-up depth where there’s real signal).
Time required (current pilot estimates):
Client Survey: 20 minutes
~
Provider Survey: 90 minutes (largely front-loaded; updates are selective)
~
Who should complete it:
One organization-level response per survey (often collaboratively), representing the organization’s integrated assumptions and choices—not individual opinions.
How clients participate:
Clients can (a) complete the Client Survey and/or (b) request Provider Survey responses from selected providers. Doing both is recommended but not required.
How sharing works:
Nothing is shared automatically. Only Provider Survey Q1–5 may be shared with a requesting client—and only with the provider’s explicit, client-specific approval. All other Provider responses (Q6–16) and all Client Survey responses are used only in de-identified and/or aggregated benchmarking (subject to minimum thresholds).
Cost:
Participation is free for both clients and providers (the business model is built on aggregate insights, not selling individual responses).
Frequently Asked Questions
Basics
1. What is the L.E.G.A.L. GenAI survey initiative?
Driven by a collaborative effort of leading law departments, the L.E.G.A.L. (Leaders Exploring Generative AI in Law) GenAI Survey Initiative is a permissioned market-intelligence system designed to measure how GenAI is actually changing the economics of legal service delivery.
Rather than collecting opinions, experiments, or technology inventories, L.E.G.A.L. focuses on commercial impact—how GenAI is affecting:
L.E.G.A.L. replaces fragmented, duplicative client surveys with a single, coordinated framework, using mirrored surveys of clients and providers to surface expectation gaps and produce decision-grade benchmarks that no individual participant could generate alone.
In short, L.E.G.A.L. is not a generic market survey. It is shared infrastructure for honest, comparable insight about GenAI’s real impact on the legal market.
who does the work,
how work is allocated and priced, and
where legal spend is moving.
2. Why is this effort necessary when there are already so many GenAI surveys?
Most client-initiated GenAI surveys are individually rational—and collectively inefficient.
Law departments send bespoke questionnaires to their providers to understand what is real. Providers respond—repeatedly—to overlapping, slightly different questions. The result is predictable: high burden, inconsistent answers, survey fatigue, and very little reusable intelligence.
L.E.G.A.L. exists to replace that fragmentation with coordination.
Instead of each client running its own survey, L.E.G.A.L. provides a shared, consensus-based instrument that providers can answer once, and then reuse, to produce market-wide benchmarks that no bilateral survey can deliver.
Equally important, L.E.G.A.L. surveys both sides of the market. By pairing mirrored Client and Provider survey instruments, the initiative makes expectation gaps visible—revealing where clients’ assumptions about GenAI diverge from providers’ actual capabilities and economics.
In short, L.E.G.A.L. does not add another survey to the pile. It is a collaborative effort to provide a coordinated replacement for existing, individual client surveys—to reduce burden while materially improving signal for everyone.
3. What is covered in the Client Survey, Provider Survey, and Case Study Canvas, respectively?
L.E.G.A.L. uses three complementary instruments, each designed for a distinct role in the intelligence system.
The Client Survey captures the demand-side perspective—how law departments are approaching GenAI from a commercial and sourcing standpoint. It focuses on expectations about how GenAI will affect workflows, staffing, pricing, and legal spend, as well as how those expectations are shaping current decisions. The Client Survey is fully structured and contains no required narrative responses, to minimize burden and maximize comparability.
The Provider Survey captures the supply-side reality—how law firms and other providers are actually deploying GenAI in ways that affect service delivery economics. It covers adoption, governance, and use cases, with particular emphasis on assumptions about efficiency, pricing, margins, and client demand. A defined subset of responses (Provider Survey Questions 1–5) may be shared directly with specific requesting clients at the provider’s discretion to replace individual client surveys. The remaining responses (Provider Survey Questions 6–16) are not disclosed to anyone, including clients, in an identifiable (firm-attributable) form. They are used only in de-identified and/or aggregated benchmarking outputs—specifically (i) client-specific benchmark reports provided to requesting clients (subject to minimum thresholds) and (ii) the composite market report shared with participants.
The Case Study Canvas is a selective follow-up tool, not a general survey. It allows clients and providers to go deeper on specific GenAI use cases where there is real signal—without turning the core surveys into a narrative exercise. This is where workflow detail, safeguards, and measurable outcomes are documented, by permission, on a case-by-case basis.
Together, the three instruments balance breadth, comparability, and depth:
structured surveys for benchmarking at scale, and
targeted case studies only where additional detail is commercially meaningful.
4. What is not covered in the Client Survey, Provider Survey, and Case Study Canvas?
L.E.G.A.L. is intentionally scoped. Its organizing principle is commercial impact—how GenAI changes who does what, how work is allocated and priced, and where legal spend moves.
That focus means we do not attempt to capture everything that is interesting about GenAI. In particular, L.E.G.A.L. is not designed to be:
a comprehensive inventory of tools, pilots, or internal experiments
a policy or compliance repository
a deep dive into GenAI issues outside legal service delivery economics
Many topics critically important to clients and providers are outside L.E.G.A.L.’s purpose. For example:
deep data security questionnaires that require cross-functional alignment well beyond clients' law department
substantive legal advice on enterprise GenAI (products, services, operations)
Excluding genuinely important topics is not a value judgment. It is a disciplined choice: better signal with less burden.
5. What are L.E.G.A.L. case studies?
L.E.G.A.L. case studies are optional, opt-in follow-ups designed to go deeper where survey results indicate real signal.
They are not required for participation and are not part of the core benchmarking instruments. Instead, case studies provide a structured way to explore specific GenAI use cases in more detail—such as workflow design, safeguards, and measurable commercial outcomes—when doing so would be informative.
Key characteristics:
Explicit consent required. Case studies are developed only with affirmative permissions from participating organizations.
Purpose-built depth. They capture nuance and context that would be inappropriate to require—or standardize—across the full survey population.
Controlled use. Case study insights may inform composite findings and, where permission is granted, be referenced in reports, briefings, or events. No attribution occurs without express approval.
The intent is to preserve discipline in the core surveys—keeping them structured, comparable, and low-burden—while still allowing deeper exploration where it is commercially meaningful.
In short: benchmark broadly, then go deep selectively—by choice, not by default.
6. If it is free, how does L.E.G.A.L. make money?
L.E.G.A.L. is free to participants:
But L.E.G.A.L. is not charity—though that would be ironic for an initiative that centers commercial impact. L.E.G.A.L. is a commercial undertaking operated by LexFusion Intelligence (Baretz+Brunelle) to build a decision-grade view of how GenAI is actually affecting legal service delivery economics.
L.E.G.A.L. generates value—and supports monetization—through aggregate insights, not individual responses. Specifically:
What does not happen:
free to clients who complete the Client Survey and/or request Provider Survey responses, and
free to providers who complete the Provider Survey, including access to composite benchmarking outputs.
We do not provide third parties access to identifiable, organization-level data.
using de-identified, composite findings as the foundation for briefings, events, research, and advisory work (including capital advisory and market strategy).
building the industry’s most robust dataset on GenAI’s commercial impact in legal, and
We do not sell individual participant responses.
In short: participation is free because the business model is built on permissioned, de-identified market intelligence at scale, not on charging participants or commercializing their individual answers.
Participation
Provider Survey: approximately 90 minutes
Client Survey: approximately 20 minutes
7. How long does the survey take?
Based on pilot testing, our current estimates are:
These estimates will be refined as the dataset grows.
The time commitment is not driven by narrative writing. There is only one required narrative question across both surveys. Most of the time is spent on structured questions that require explicit thinking—particularly about GenAI’s commercial impact and operating assumptions.
For many organizations, L.E.G.A.L. will be the first time those assumptions are articulated clearly and consistently. That work is valuable—but it is not trivial.
The effort required, however, is largely front-loaded:
Responses persist and are prepopulated for future requests.
Updates are needed only when facts or assumptions change.
Subsequent interactions require far less time.
Importantly, L.E.G.A.L. reduces—not adds to—existing survey burden. Many one-off, client-authored GenAI surveys are narrative-heavy and, on their own, take longer than L.E.G.A.L. The aggregate time savings should be substantial.
Participating providers can further compound these time savings by redirecting clients who send bespoke GenAI surveys to use L.E.G.A.L. instead. This allows providers to release existing responses, if they so choose, rather than repeatedly completing new questionnaires, while still meeting clients’ information needs.
In short: L.E.G.A.L. requires real thinking once, then dramatically reduces repeat effort—producing better signal with less cumulative time investment.
8. Who should complete the survey?
Each survey is intended to be completed at the organization level, not by an individual acting solely in a personal capacity.
Accordingly, responses should be owned by stakeholders who are trusted to represent the organization’s GenAI strategy and operating assumptions—including how GenAI is expected to affect workflows, staffing, pricing, and economics over time.
In many organizations, completing the survey is a collaborative effort, drawing on input from leadership, innovation, operations, pricing, or knowledge teams. L.E.G.A.L. supports multiple contributors, but the final submission represents one consolidated, firmwide or department-wide view.
The goal is not to capture every internal opinion but to reflect the integrated set of choices the organization is actually making—or is prepared to make—as GenAI adoption evolves.
9. Is there a way to save in-progress responses? Can multiple people collaborate on one response?
Yes to both.
As explained more below, submitting saves in-progress responses. Submission alone does not release responses. Submission is required to enable collaboration.
Collaboration is both supported and encouraged. L.E.G.A.L. is designed to capture a unified, organization-level view, and many of the questions might benefit from input from more than one stakeholder.
While online collaboration is enabled, most collaboration will occur offline. All L.E.G.A.L. materials, including the annotated survey instruments, are available on the L.E.G.A.L. website for review or download, in both human- and machine-readable format.
Submitting vs Releasing Responses. At the bottom of each survey instrument, there is a single action button—Submit—which serves two purposes:
10. Can we submit more than one response?
No. L.E.G.A.L. accepts one unified set of responses per organization. Responses, however, are persistent and organizations can selectively update their responses over time.
The initiative is designed to operate at the organizational level, not the individual level. While organizations naturally contain differing views, L.E.G.A.L. is intended to capture the integrated position reflected in the organization’s strategy and operating choices, not a collection of individual opinions.
Internal debate and collaboration are encouraged as part of arriving at that response. But the final submission represents the organization’s consolidated view at a specific point in time. Maintaining one official set of responses per organization is essential for comparability, benchmarking integrity, and longitudinal analysis—and for keeping L.E.G.A.L. decision-grade rather than anecdotal.
A potential supplementary use. Separately—and explicitly outside the current core L.E.G.A.L. benchmarking system—we are exploring a pared-down internal version of the commercial-assumptions portion of the survey. This would enable organizations to run an internal diagnostic to understand the distribution of beliefs within their own teams about GenAI’s direction and speed of impact. Any such use would be optional, separate, and overexplained when offered—to the point of likely having its own FAQ.
For Clients
11. How does L.E.G.A.L. benefit clients?
L.E.G.A.L. gives clients better intelligence with materially less effort—at no cost.
Lower burden. L.E.G.A.L. designs, administers, and manages the Provider Survey on the client’s behalf. Clients still receive their providers’ client-facing responses as if they had run the survey themselves—but without the administrative overhead.
Stronger provider benchmarking. Clients can benchmark individual providers against a broader, market-wide data set that no single client could assemble independently—with client-specific panel views and richer diagnostics (e.g., distributions) are delivered when minimum provider-response thresholds are met.
Peer law department insight. Through the Client Survey, participating organizations gain visibility (de-identified) into how peer law departments are approaching GenAI—another perspective that is otherwise inaccessible.
Clearer diagnosis of misalignment. As a neutral third party, L.E.G.A.L. can ask providers questions that clients would not receive candid answers to directly. When paired with mirrored Client Survey responses, this data helps surface the root causes of client–provider misalignment, rather than just its symptoms.
A shared point of reference. By grounding conversations in robust benchmarks made available to all participants, L.E.G.A.L. improves the quality of internal discussions and external provider dialogue—shifting conversations from anecdote and assertion to evidence.
how their own operations assumptions compare to peers
12. How do clients participate in L.E.G.A.L.?
Clients participate in L.E.G.A.L. in two complementary ways.
First, clients complete the Client Survey, which captures their own expectations and assumptions about GenAI’s commercial impact. This enables benchmarking against peer law departments and provides essential context for interpreting provider responses. Outside of the client’s own internal use—i.e., comparing their answers to their peers and providers—Client Survey responses are used solely as de-identified/aggregated benchmarking data.
Second, clients request that their law firms and other legal service providers complete the Provider Survey. When a provider completes the survey, the client-facing portions of that provider’s responses may be shared with the requesting client, if the provider explicitly authorizes release. This is a double opt-in process: clients request responses, and providers decide whether to release them.
Together, these two steps allow clients to see:
how their providers compare to one another and the broader market
complete only the Client Survey;
request only Provider Survey responses from their providers; or
13. Do clients need to take the Client Survey to request responses to the Provider Survey from their providers, and vice versa?
No. Clients may choose to do either, or both—but both is strongly recommended.
A client can:
do both.
Each instrument is valuable on its own:
15. How do client requests to providers work in practice?
When clients ask for Provider Survey responses, the process is straightforward and can be run in a we-handle-it mode or a you-send-it mode.
Option A – Central administration (lowest effort for clients)
For direct requests, clients provide us the email address for their primary contact at each provider. We handle distribution, reminders, follow-ups, and response tracking through the close of the response window. If the provider already has a response on file, the direct request will be automatically converted to a response release request.
For response release requests, clients identify the providers—just the organization name; no individuals’ names nor contact details. If the provider has a response in the system, we reach out to each provider’s designated point of contact for L.E.G.A.L. administration seeking release authorization. If not, the release request remains pending until the provider submits a response—e.g., at the direct request of another client.
Option B — Client-distributed outreach
If clients prefer not to share provider contact details, we supply clients with ready-to-send outreach language and a unique survey registration link that allows providers to register themselves—at which point we take over administration, including follow-ups. If the provider already has a response on file, the registration process will surface this and convert a direct request into a response release request.
Data handling and deletion
Any provider contact information supplied by clients is used solely to administer survey outreach for that response cycle. It is not used for marketing, not repurposed for other engagements, not shared in identifiable form, and is deleted on a defined schedule after survey administration concludes.
With respect to the sharing of such information, we defer to each client’s internal standards and practices and are amenable to NDAs, data processing addenda, or supplier onboarding where required.
Outreach templates
All standard outreach email templates, including Direct Response Requests and Response Release Requests, are included in the downloadable L.E.G.A.L. reference materials under “L.E.G.A.L. Outreach Email Templates.”
Direct Request. Clients ask specific providers to complete the Provider Survey. If a provider has already responded to the Provider Survey voluntarily or at the request of another client, the direct request is automatically converted into a release request (next).
14. Do clients have to request responses from all their providers? What about providers we only work with occasionally?
No. Clients have full discretion over which providers they include and how.
L.E.G.A.L. supports two participation modes so clients can tailor outreach based on the importance and frequency of each provider relationship:
There is, of course, also a third category: providers from whom clients request nothing at all.
Which providers fall into which category is entirely up to clients. L.E.G.A.L. is designed to accommodate active outreach to focused panels of core firms and broader, lower-touch coverage of extended provider networks.
RFIs handle what is truly bespoke.
L.E.G.A.L. handles the shared baseline.
16. How does L.E.G.A.L. work alongside RFIs?
L.E.G.A.L. is designed to supplement—not replace—RFIs.
The client-facing portion of the L.E.G.A.L. Provider Survey covers the common, core questions that providers are routinely asked across clients—as evinced in the many client-authored surveys we collected when creating L.E.G.A.L., these questions rarely change but are repeatedly re-answered in slightly different narrative forms. Providers answer these questions once in L.E.G.A.L. and update them only when facts or assumptions change.
This does not eliminate all RFIs, it allows RFIs to be narrower and more targeted. Rather than re-asking baseline questions, clients can focus RFIs on their specific requirements, risks, or use cases.
In practice:
The result is less burden for providers, better signal for clients, and cleaner separation between benchmarking and unique client needs.
17. How does L.E.G.A.L. benefit providers?
Just as clients get better intelligence with less effort, providers get fewer surveys, more control, and better insight without giving up confidentiality or negotiating leverage—at no cost.
Lower burden. Providers answer the core GenAI questions once, not separately for every client. Responses persist and are prepopulated for future requests, allowing providers to update only when facts or assumptions change rather than starting from scratch each time.
Client-by-client control. Disclosure of client-facing responses is never automatic. Providers decide, on a client-by-client basis, whether and when to release their responses. This preserves normal bilateral control while eliminating duplicative effort.
Peer and client benchmarking. Participation entitles providers to composite benchmarking insights showing how peers are approaching GenAI’s commercial impact and how client expectations are evolving—intelligence providers do not receive with one-off, client-mandated surveys.
A safe space for candor. As a neutral third party, L.E.G.A.L. can ask questions providers could not answer candidly if clients saw the responses. These perspectives—presented only in de-indentified form—allow providers to avoid commercial risk but still surface valid concerns about pricing pressure, unrealistic expectations.
A shared point of reference. With both client and provider data in the system, L.E.G.A.L. creates a common factual baseline that improves the quality of conversations, both with clients and for internal strategic decision-making.
CONFIDENTIALITY, SHARING, DATA HANDLING, AND SECURITY
Responses persist and are prepopulated for future requests, with updates made only when facts or assumptions change.
Providers submit one firmwide response, not client-specific versions.
18. How do providers participate in L.E.G.A.L.?
Providers participate in L.E.G.A.L. in two ways.
First, providers may complete the Provider Survey in response to a client request. This is the most common entry point and allows providers to respond once to a standardized set of questions that multiple clients can reuse—subject to the provider’s client-specific authorization decisions.
Second, providers may participate voluntarily, even absent a specific client request. Voluntary participation allows providers to establish a baseline and gain access to composite benchmarking insights.
In all cases:
Participation is designed to minimize effort while maximizing reuse, control, and insight—both immediately and over time.
Client-facing sharing remains entirely permission-based on an individual, client-by-client basis.
19. Why would a provider participate voluntarily—i.e., absent a client request?
Voluntary participation is primarily about benchmarking, readiness, and burden reduction.
Benchmarking access. Participation is the mechanism by which providers receive the L.E.G.A.L. composite benchmarking report, including insight into peer behavior and evolving client expectations.
Establish a baseline before the first request. Completing the Provider Survey in advance allows a provider to set a firmwide, consistent baseline, rather than responding under time pressure when the first client request arrives.
Reduce future friction. Because responses are persistent and prepopulated, participating early means subsequent client requests require minimal incremental effort—update if needed, then decide whether to release client-facing responses.
Redirect duplicative client surveys. Once a provider participates in L.E.G.A.L., they can encourage clients who send bespoke GenAI surveys to use L.E.G.A.L. instead. This allows the provider to release existing responses, if they so choose, rather than completing yet another one-off questionnaire, while still meeting the client’s information needs.
In short: providers participate voluntarily to gain market-grade insight, get ahead of inbound requests, and replace fragmented client surveys with a single, reusable source of truth—all while retaining full, client-by-client control over what is shared.
For Providers
Client-by-client control. Authorization is granted (or withheld) separately for each requesting client. Granting access to one client does not grant access to any other.
21. How does controlled client-facing sharing work for providers? Client-facing sharing is permission-based, client-specific, and never automatic. When a client requests a provider’s responses, the provider decides whether and when to authorize release of responses to that specific requesting client. No responses are shared unless the provider explicitly authorizes disclosure to that requesting client.
L.E.G.A.L. uses provider responses in two distinct lanes, with different visibility rules:
Lane 1 — Controlled full disclosure (Provider Survey Questions 1–5 only)
What can be shared: Only Provider Survey Questions 1–5 are eligible for direct, provider-identified sharing with a requesting client.
When sharing happens: Only when the provider has expressly authorized disclosure to that specific requesting client (client-by-client permission).
How it is treated: When released, responses are treated as confidential provider-to-client information, as if the client had administered the survey directly; it does not authorize sharing with other clients or third parties.
Fresh releases + control: If a client requests a fresh release, providers receive advance notice and an opportunity (not an obligation) to update—or to withdraw authorization for that requesting client.
Withdrawal: Providers can withdraw authorization for a particular client at any time; withdrawal applies prospectively and does not require program-level withdrawal.
Lane 2 — Benchmarking and reporting (client-specific + program-wide; hybrid identified + de-identified)
Client-specific benchmark reporting (Provider Survey Questions 1–16): Requesting clients may also receive a client-specific benchmark report that contextualizes provider responses, subject to strict visibility limits:
Defined scope. Only Questions 1–5 are eligible for provider-identified disclosure. Questions 6–16 are never disclosed in a provider-attributable form.
Persistence with flexibility. Once authorized, responses remain available to that client unless the provider chooses to update them or withdraw release authorization. Providers are notified before any fresh release and may revise responses or revoke authorization if desired.
Normal bilateral treatment. When shared, responses are treated as confidential provider-to-client information—exactly as if the client had administered the survey directly.
In short, L.E.G.A.L. reduces duplication without changing control dynamics: providers retain full discretion, clients receive consistent information, and benchmarking remains de-identified by default. For more, see the L.E.G.A.L. Nondisclosure Policy.
When a client requests responses, providers receive advance notice and an opportunity (but not an obligation) to revise their answers before any authorized release.
22. How do updates or revisions to responses work? Responses in L.E.G.A.L. are persistent, updatable, and under participant control.
L.E.G.A.L. is designed as an ongoing intelligence system, not a one-time survey. When an organization completes a survey, its responses are retained as a baseline and prepopulated for future requests. Participants may update their responses at any time—but are never required to do so unless something has materially changed.
For providers that have already responded in particular:
This model reduces repeat burden while supporting longitudinal analysis—making it possible to see which assumptions hold, which change, and how quickly the market is actually moving.
In short: participants do the thinking once, update selectively, and retain control throughout.
If a provider is satisfied with its current responses, no action is required.
Authorizations to share responses with a specific client remain in effect unless the provider chooses to withdraw or modify them.
Survey responses (client and provider), a program point of contact (POC) for administration and notices, and designated internal collaborators.
23. How is participant data handled and secured? L.E.G.A.L. is designed to be safe-by-default: de-identified by default, consent-driven disclosure, and strict use limitations. All participation in L.E.G.A.L. is governed by the Nondisclosure Policy.
What we collect (and what we don’t):
If a client supplies provider contact emails to facilitate outreach, we use them only to administer that survey cycle and then delete.
We deliberately limit collection and retention of personally identifiable information to what’s needed for program administration.
How information is used (and not used):
We do not sell individual participant data. Data is used only to: (i) transmit authorized provider responses to requesting clients (Questions 1–5 only), (ii) produce de-identified/aggregated benchmarking and trend analysis, and (iii) support deeper, opt-in collaboration where separately consented.
Contact information collected for L.E.G.A.L. is used only for L.E.G.A.L. administration and is not added to marketing lists or repurposed for unrelated outreach.
We maintain strict internal controls, including limiting raw submission access to the core project team and storing contact information separately from composite outputs.
Security and access controls:
Security controls include encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access control, SSO/MFA protections for admin access, and defined retention/deletion operations for systems and backups.
For more, see L.E.G.A.L’s security documentation.
Contact information retention & deletion:
Provider/client POC information is retained solely for program administration (e.g., notices related to “fresh releases” or dashboard enablement) and is not shared with other participants or requesting clients.
Client-supplied provider emails (if provided for outreach) are used only for that outreach and then deleted on the policy schedule after the response period closes; ongoing administration relies on provider-entered POCs.
“Deletion” refers to contact records stored in L.E.G.A.L.-specific program systems; it does not require purging ordinarycourse business communications (e.g., email threads) or enterprise backups maintained under standard practices.
How providers participate:
Providers can complete the Provider Survey in response to a client request or voluntarily to establish a baseline; responses persist and are prepopulated for future requests.
We also process limited system access and security metadata (for example, authentication/session logs) solely to protect accounts and administer secure access; it is not used for benchmarking and is not shared in controlled disclosures.
Client-facing disclosures never include POC/contact information, client-supplied outreach email lists, or system access/security metadata.
Important scope note:
L.E.G.A.L. is not designed for privileged communications or matter-level content. We do not request sensitive personal data (including special-category data), government identification numbers, financial account numbers, or HR/personnel records, and participants should not provide such information in free-text fields.
For full detail, see the L.E.G.A.L. Nondisclosure Policy.
At a Glance
Basics
Participation
For Clients
For Providers
Confidentiality, Sharing, Data Handline, and Security
Quick Links
Quick Links to Sections
Read the Press Release
Receive notifications if someone from the organization attempts to register separately while a survey is already in progress
Receive system communications related to access, updates, or continuity
If a provider, receive new client requests for release of Provider Survey responses or a Case Study Canvas
where, and how, their perspective differs from their providers (de-identified to enable candor)
Release Request. Clients register interest in a provider’s responses. If the provider has already completed the Provider Survey, L.E.G.A.L. requests their authorization to release those existing responses to the requesting client. If the provider has not already completed the Provider Survey, the client’s request remains on file and is triggered if and when the provider later completes the survey—e.g., at the request of another client. While a provider may be informed of the number of pending release requests, the identities of clients registering release requests are not communicated to a provider until they have completed the survey.
20. Are all the questions mandatory? Do firms need to respond to Questions 6–16 of the Provider Survey?
No individual question is mandatory. Providers may decline to answer any question, including Questions 6–16.
That said, L.E.G.A.L. is designed to be transparent about what is and is not included in any given dataset:
Client-facing extract (Questions 1–5): If a provider authorizes release to a requesting client, that client receives the provider’s submitted responses to Questions 1–5 as if the client administered the survey directly. If a provider leaves an item blank, the client will see that it is unanswered.
Client-specific benchmark reporting (Questions 1–16; hybrid identified + de-identified): Client-specific benchmark segments are shown only where at least five (5) providers are included; de-identified dot plots/distributions are shown only where at least twenty (20) providers are included. Where these minimum thresholds are met, client-specific benchmark reports may include dataset completeness transparency at two levels:
Panel coverage: a list of firms included in the report (submitted + authorized release to that requesting client) and firms requested by the client but not included (did not submit and/or did not authorize release).
Question-level completeness: within specific benchmarks, identification of which included firms are not included in that benchmark because they did not answer the relevant question(s).
Composite market reporting (program-wide): In the composite market report, no providers are identified (neither included nor excluded) without express permission.
In short: providers can skip any question, but non-response may be visible in client-specific reporting as ‘not answered’ and/or through question-level completeness notes.
Questions 1–5: Where the provider has authorized disclosure to that requesting client, Questions 1–5 may be reflected in provider-attributed form (including comparative views) in the client-specific report.
Questions 6–16: Provider responses are used only in de-identified and/or aggregated form. Individual provider responses are not disclosed in a provider-attributable way, though they may be reflected as unlabeled points in de-identified visualizations where thresholds are met.
Participation and dataset completeness transparency: Client-specific reports may include (i) a panel coverage list identifying firms included in the client’s report and firms requested by the client but not included (did not submit and/or did not authorize release to that requesting client), and (ii) within specific benchmarks, identification of which included firms are not included in that benchmark because they did not answer the relevant question(s). This identifies coverage and non-response—not any firm’s underlying non-client-facing answers.
Minimum thresholds: No client-specific segment (including averages) is shown unless at least five (5) providers are included for that question/segment. De-identified dot plots/distributions are shown only when at least twenty (20) providers are included for that question/segment. Below these thresholds, the attendant benchmarks and visualizations are not provided.
Program-wide composite market reporting: Provider responses may also be used in program-wide, de-identified and/or aggregated benchmarking and longitudinal analysis, including the composite market report shared with all participants. No firms are identified in the composite market report (neither included nor excluded) absent express, written opt-in.
Always true — Client Survey responses are never shared
Client Survey responses are used only as de-identified and/or aggregated benchmarking data and are never shared with providers or other third parties in client-attributable form.
Thus, for providers, the key features of the model:
What you get back:
Composite market report for all participants. Clients receive provider responses to core questions (Q1-5) as if they had administered survey themselves. Clients also receive peer and provider benchmarking outputs that scale with provider response volume.
What clients receive depends on how they participate (Client Survey only, Provider requests only, or both). See the next question for the specific deliverables and the thresholds that unlock panel-level benchmarking and richer diagnostics.
The Client Survey benchmarks your assumptions and decision posture against peer law departments.
The Provider Survey benchmarks your providers against the broader market.
But together, the mirrored instruments help pinpoint where misalignment originates—client expectations, provider realities, or both—so you can focus action where it will change outcomes (work allocation, pricing, controls, and spend).
What you receive depends on how you participate.
Complete the Client Survey only → Composite Benchmark Report. You receive the de-identified, program-wide composite benchmarking report shared with all participants. This lets you compare your own responses to the global results, internally.
Request Provider Survey responses only → Provider Responses & Benchmarks (where minimum thresholds met).
Where you request provider survey responses and they authorize release to you (double opt in), you receive providers’ raw respondes to Provider Survey Questions 1–5 just as if you had administered the survey yourself.
Where you meet a minimum threshold of five providers releasing responses to you, you also receive:
Individual provider responses to Provider Survey Questions 2-4 benchmarked against both your provider panel’s composite responses and the global provider data set.
Your provider panel’s composite responses to Provider Survey Questions 6-16 benchmarked against the global provider data set.
Where you meet a minimum threshold of twenty providers releasing responses to you, you also receive:
Individual provider responses to Provider Survey Questions 2-4 benchmarked against your provider panel’s segmented responses and the segmented global provider data set.
De-identified dot visulizations showing your provider panel’s responses to Question 6-16 benchmarked agains the global provider data set.
Do both (Client Survey + Provider requests) → Full client benchmarking (demand-side + supply-side), with richer diagnostics. You’ll receive all the above, plus:
Your responses benchmarked against the segmented global client data set and the global provider data set.
Where you meet a minimum threshold of five providers releasing responses to you, you also receive your provider panel’s responses benchmarked against your responses, the segmented global client data set, and the global provider data set.
Where you meet a minimum threshold of twenty providers releasing responses to you, you also receive your provider panel’s de-identified dot visulizations benchmarked against your responses, the segmented global client data set, and the global provider data set.
Primary Point of Contact. At the top of each survey instrument, organizations are asked to designate a Primary Point of Contact. This contact serves as the system point of continuity and will, depending on organization type:
It saves responses to the system; and
It makes the most recent version available to optional collaborators
Submitting the survey saves your current responses to the system and enables collaboration. Submission alone does not release responses.
Release requires an independent authorization step—a separate Acknowledgment checkbox at the end of the survey. Release therefore depends on two conditions:
Submitted survey responses, and
Release authorization.
Responses are released only if both conditions are met. For the Provider Survey, this means authorized client-facing responses are transmitted to the client at the close of the response period only if the client-specific release authorization is active.
Key points to note:
You may submit and update the survey without authorizing release
Authorization may be withdrawn at any time, prospectively
In the case of the Provider Survey, authorization is client specific (i.e., granted on a client-by-client basis) and must be active when the response period closes in order for responses to be transmitted
In short, submission controls saving and collaboration; authorization controls visibility.
Until designated in the survey, the system defaults to making the first email address to register for L.E.G.A.L. the Primary Point of Contact. The Primary Point of Contact may be changed at any time. While organizations may designate any individual, for continuity, we recommend using a group inbox, where feasible, for the Primary Point of Contact.
Indeed, to avoid duplicate effort and keep one organization-level response, once an organization’s L.E.G.A.L. profile exists we route subsequent registrations from the same organization to the established Primary Point of Contact to connect colleagues internally and coordinate participation—e.g., by adding optional collaborators.
Optional Collaborators. Along with the Primary Point of Contact, organizations may list additional collaborators by providing their email addresses in a separate field at the top of each survey instrument. Collaborators are granted access to contribute to the organization’s unified survey response. In the case of the Provider Survey, collaborators are client specific—i.e., different collaborators are added to the form associated with a specific client and, unlike responses, are not shared between forms.
While the system supports multiple contributors, it does not support simultaneous co-authoring. That is, per the above, responses must be submitted to be saved and made available to collaborators. Think of this like a document management system: submitting the survey is equivalent to checking the document back in so others can work from the current version.
Thus, at any given time, only one person should be editing the survey. Other collaborators can continue work only after the current editor submits. This design preserves version integrity and prevents conflicting edits.
