Appendix C: comparison
law firms vs. legal departments
This section consolidates the systematic comparison between the study's two populations: law firms (n=72) and in-house legal departments (n=39). Both answered equivalent items adapted to their context. The test is Mann-Whitney U, with effect size r = Z/√N (|r| > 0.3 medium, > 0.5 large; Cohen, 1988).
Main finding
Of the 27 pairs of Likert items compared, only 5 show a significant difference (p < 0.05). This means that the two populations are more similar than different in their perceptions of legal technology, AI and ethical practices. The differences that do exist are concentrated in client experience and ethical practices.
Summary of the 27 Likert pairs
| Item | Mean, firms | Mean, depts. | p | r | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Limited access to technology hinders digitalization | 3.36 | 3.15 | 0.5646 | 0.054 | — |
| Infrastructure supports digital legal services | 3.34 | 3.60 | 0.2186 | 0.119 | — |
| Systems ensure traceability of decisions | 3.27 | 3.10 | 0.5348 | 0.059 | — |
| Compatibility problems slow down digital transformation | 2.73 | 3.23 | 0.0561 | 0.185 | — |
| It is difficult to procure legal software | 2.64 | 3.10 | 0.0928 | 0.158 | — |
| Human connection remains more important than technology | 4.16 | 3.97 | 0.5152 | 0.058 | — |
| Human oversight of AI work must be a core competency | 4.65 | 4.26 | 0.0061 | 0.221 | ✱ |
| Resistance to change is the main obstacle | 3.54 | 3.64 | 0.5839 | 0.051 | — |
| Technology has increased efficiency | 3.96 | 4.11 | 0.3646 | 0.084 | — |
| Automation has reduced costs | 3.35 | 3.62 | 0.2904 | 0.105 | — |
| Automation lets us devote more time to high-value work | 3.88 | 3.97 | 0.6255 | 0.046 | — |
| Required bringing in non-legal professionals | 3.15 | 3.19 | 0.9582 | 0.005 | — |
| Clients / internal clients respond faster | 2.92 | 3.50 | 0.0127 | 0.247 | ✱ |
| Expectativas cliente | 3.65 | 4.10 | 0.0206 | 0.209 | ✱ |
| Perceived satisfaction | 3.43 | 3.77 | 0.1288 | 0.138 | — |
| Transparencia | 3.78 | 3.97 | 0.2613 | 0.101 | — |
| Preference for digital interactions | 2.64 | 3.23 | 0.0076 | 0.242 | ✱ |
| Consistency in quality | 3.65 | 3.85 | 0.5542 | 0.052 | — |
| AI enables offering new services | 3.21 | 3.18 | 0.9429 | 0.008 | — |
| AI enables offering more accurate services | 3.75 | 3.82 | 0.9875 | 0.002 | — |
| Time spent on routine tasks has decreased | 3.92 | 3.61 | 0.2329 | 0.126 | — |
| AI tools have improved the capacity to handle cases | 3.60 | 3.54 | 0.9297 | 0.010 | — |
| Sufficient understanding of how to implement AI | 3.40 | 3.29 | 0.7081 | 0.041 | — |
| We assess ethical risks before implementing AI | 3.87 | 2.86 | 0.0040 | 0.307 | ✱ |
| We apply confidentiality protocols when using AI | 3.83 | 3.50 | 0.4033 | 0.089 | — |
| We consult codes of conduct when using AI | 3.23 | 3.11 | 0.6974 | 0.042 | — |
| We document the ethical impact of using AI | 3.13 | 2.46 | 0.0522 | 0.211 | — |
Only 5 of 27 items show a statistically significant difference (α = 0.05). The convergence on 22 of 27 items suggests that perceptions of legal technology cut across organization type: law firms and legal departments face similar challenges and share common professional views.
Analysis by thematic section
Technological infrastructure
No infrastructure item shows a significant difference. Both populations perceive similar levels of access, traceability and compatibility problems. This suggests that infrastructure challenges are structural to the Mexican legal sector, not tied to organization type.
Professional adaptation and competencies
The only significant item is human oversight of AI work (Firms: 4.65 vs. Depts.: 4.26, p=0.006, r=0.22). Law firms value this competency more, possibly because their business model depends directly on the quality of the legal work delivered to the client. The other two items (centrality of human connections and resistance to change) are consensus findings.
Operational efficiency
The significant item is speed of communication with clients (Firms: 2.92 vs. Depts.: 3.50, p=0.013, r=0.25). Legal departments perceive greater improvement in communication, possibly because their "internal clients" respond within the same organization, facilitating the adoption of digital channels.
Client experience
Two significant items:
- Client expectations aligned with technology (Firms: 3.65 vs. Depts.: 4.10, p=0.021, r=0.21): legal departments perceive that their internal clients have technology expectations that are more aligned.
- Preference for digital interactions (Firms: 2.64 vs. Depts.: 3.23, p=0.008, r=0.24): the internal clients of legal departments prefer digital more than the external clients of law firms.
Both findings are coherent: internal clients (employees of the same company) tend to be more digitalized than the external clients of law firms, which include individuals and SMEs with lower technology adoption.
Impact of AI on legal services
No item shows a significant difference. The perception of the impact of AI on legal services is notably uniform between law firms and legal departments: both see similar benefits in accuracy, reduction of routine tasks and case-handling capacity. This suggests that the impact of AI does not depend on organization type, but on the maturity of its implementation.
Ethical practices
The most relevant finding of the entire firms-vs.-departments comparison: law firms assess ethical risks before implementing AI more frequently than legal departments (Firms: 3.87 vs. Depts.: 2.86, p=0.004, r=0.31, medium effect). This is the highest effect size of the 27 pairs compared.
The most likely explanation: law firms bear direct responsibility to the client for the quality and ethics of their work. An ethical error can generate professional liability and direct reputational harm. Legal departments, working within a corporation, can partly delegate this responsibility to the organizational structure.
Scalar variables
No scalar variable (KPI maturity, % digitalized documents, level of knowledge) shows a significant difference. Both populations start from similar levels of organizational maturity, which reinforces the conclusion that the differences found in the Likert items reflect specific dynamics of the client relationship, not structural differences.
AI adoption
The AI implementation rate is statistically indistinguishable between populations (χ² = 0.052, p = 0.820). Both law firms (73.6%) and legal departments (69.4%) report high levels of AI adoption, which suggests that this trend is sectoral, not conditioned by the type of legal organization.
Synthesis of findings
The 5 items with a significant difference (p < 0.05):
| Item | Mean, firms | Mean, depts. | p | r | Higher mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Human oversight of AI work must be a core competency | 4.65 | 4.26 | 0.0061 | 0.221 | Law firms |
| Clients / internal clients respond faster | 2.92 | 3.50 | 0.0127 | 0.247 | Legal departments |
| Expectativas cliente | 3.65 | 4.10 | 0.0206 | 0.209 | Legal departments |
| Preference for digital interactions | 2.64 | 3.23 | 0.0076 | 0.242 | Legal departments |
| We assess ethical risks before implementing AI | 3.87 | 2.86 | 0.0040 | 0.307 | Law firms |
| Dimension | Pattern |
|---|---|
| Infrastructure | No differences, shared challenges |
| Professional adaptation | General consensus. Law firms value human oversight of AI more |
| Efficiency | Legal departments perceive greater improvement in digital communication |
| Client experience | Legal departments: internal clients more digitalized and with higher technology expectations |
| Impact of AI | Full convergence, perceived impact does not depend on organization type |
| Ethical practices | Largest difference: law firms assess ethical risks more frequently (r=0.31) |
The narrative that emerges is clear: the differences are concentrated in the client relationship, not in the technology itself. Law firms, with direct responsibility toward external clients, develop greater ethical awareness. Legal departments, with internal clients that are more digitalized, perceive greater technological alignment.
How to cite
Prince Tritto, P., Villa Berger, P., Salmon, L., Muñoz Ponce, M., & Limón González, J. B. (2026). Technology Maturity Index for the Legal Industry: pilot study (data from Mexico, 2025). Law and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Universidad Panamericana; KermaPartners; Lemontech. https://labderia.up.edu.mx/en/legaltech-report
Prince Tritto, P., Villa Berger, P., Salmon, L., Muñoz Ponce, M., Limón González, J. B.. 2026. Technology Maturity Index for the Legal Industry: pilot study (data from Mexico, 2025). Law and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Universidad Panamericana; KermaPartners; Lemontech. https://labderia.up.edu.mx/en/legaltech-report.
Prince Tritto, P., et al. Technology Maturity Index for the Legal Industry: pilot study (data from Mexico, 2025). Law and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Universidad Panamericana; KermaPartners; Lemontech, 2026, https://labderia.up.edu.mx/en/legaltech-report.
@techreport{princetritto2026legaltech, author = {Prince Tritto, Philippe and Villa Berger, Patricia and Salmon, Luciana and Muñoz Ponce, Marcela and Limón González, José Briam}, title = {Technology Maturity Index for the Legal Industry: pilot study (data from Mexico, 2025)}, institution = {Law and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Universidad Panamericana; KermaPartners; Lemontech}, year = {2026}, url = {https://labderia.up.edu.mx/en/legaltech-report} }