Most firms can tell when their managed service provider relationship is underperforming. Proving it is harder. A slow response, another application outage or a surprise invoice may cause frustration without giving leadership enough evidence to make a sound decision.
An effective review connects the service your firm receives to the work it needs to accomplish. Are attorneys losing less time to technology? Are recurring problems being resolved? Does leadership understand the risks, costs and priorities ahead?
Review those questions annually, with regular performance discussions throughout the year. The aim is to decide whether the relationship should continue, improve or change—and to support that decision with evidence.
Measure restored productivity, not just fast acknowledgment
A ticket acknowledged in fifteen minutes may satisfy a response target. It does not tell you when the attorney could return to work.
Ask your provider to distinguish acknowledgment, meaningful engagement, restoration of service and final resolution. A workaround may restore access before the underlying defect is fixed; both milestones are worth understanding.
Review results by priority and impact. A firmwide document-system outage should not disappear inside an average dominated by password resets. Look at typical completion times, older unresolved tickets, reopened issues and the slowest cases. Agree on how waiting time, business hours and vendor dependencies are counted.
Resolution times will not improve every quarter. A migration or a change in workload can affect the numbers. What matters is whether the provider explains the results, identifies persistent delays and follows through on corrective action.
Find out whether recurring problems are actually disappearing
When the same application issue returns each month, closing each ticket is not enough. Ask what the provider has learned about the cause and what permanent action is planned.
For a fictional example, staff repeatedly report slow matter searches. Restarting a service may provide temporary relief. A stronger response documents the pattern, investigates the database and application dependencies, coordinates with the software vendor and verifies whether the change improves the affected workflow.
Use ticket trends alongside staff feedback and application measurements. Falling ticket volume can indicate improvement, but it can also mean people stopped reporting problems. Increasing volume can reflect growth, a rollout or a better reporting process. Interpret the pattern before treating the number as a verdict.
Test whether they help you make investment decisions
A technology partner should translate a recommendation into a business decision. What problem does it address? What are the options? What will it cost? What happens if the firm defers it?
Look for a roadmap that separates urgent risk, necessary maintenance and optional improvements. Recommendations should include dependencies, timing, responsible owners and a way to assess the result.
Additional project charges are not automatically evidence of a poor relationship. Some work reasonably sits outside the monthly agreement. The concern is unclear scope, unexplained charges or recommendations that never advance beyond a sales proposal.
Ask to see one completed improvement from the past year, including the original rationale and the outcome. That demonstrates more than a list of projects the provider hopes to sell.
Assess legal workflow knowledge through examples
Knowing a product name is different from understanding how your firm uses it.
If your firm relies on iManage, NetDocuments, ProLaw, Aderant or Elite, ask how the provider supports the systems you actually have. Which responsibilities belong to the MSP, which belong to the software vendor, and how are escalations coordinated?
Legal workflow knowledge also includes document access, matter restrictions, court-filing deadlines, time entry, billing cycles and the way your teams collaborate. A provider should ask before scheduling a change that could disrupt those activities.
Request examples of how support handles an urgent filing-related issue or a problem involving a restricted matter. Evaluate the procedure and responsible people rather than accepting a general claim of legal expertise.
Examine their behavior during an incident
During a serious outage or security event, leadership needs clear ownership and dependable communication. Who is coordinating the response? What is known? What remains uncertain? When will the next update arrive?
Ask for the incident plan, escalation contacts and a recent review of a significant event. If the firm has not experienced one, use a tabletop exercise to test how the provider would work with leadership, application vendors and other advisers.
NIST treats incident response as part of ongoing cybersecurity risk management, including preparation, detection, response and recovery. [1] Your review should examine those capabilities before an emergency, not rely solely on whether the provider answered quickly during the last outage.
A useful post-incident review records contributing factors, the recovery timeline and actions with owners and deadlines. Follow up on completion. A polished report without implemented changes is incomplete improvement.
Ask for evidence that supports the firm's obligations
A monthly summary should make the current position understandable: what is covered, what was checked, what failed and what remains outstanding.
Depending on scope, useful evidence may include patch exceptions, backup and restore-test results, identity-control coverage, access reviews and unresolved security findings. NIST describes patch management as including verification of installation, not simply scheduling updates. [2]
Agree on the evidence your firm needs for client questionnaires, insurance renewals and internal oversight. Requirements vary, and a standard report will not satisfy every audit or insurer. The provider should maintain the relevant records and explain any gaps rather than reconstruct routine evidence from memory.
Security responsibilities should also be explicit in the contract. A joint advisory from international cybersecurity authorities calls for MSP customers to align contractual security measures with their requirements and clarify ownership of security responsibilities. [3]
Compare the total cost of the relationship
The monthly fee is one part of the cost. Include project charges, licensing, after-hours services, vendor coordination and the internal effort required to manage the provider.
Consider disruption as well, using observed task delays or documented outage periods where possible. Avoid treating every minute of staff inconvenience as recoverable revenue. Use consistent assumptions so comparisons remain credible.
Confirm that the firm has appropriate administrative ownership, documentation and an agreed transition process. A sustainable relationship should give leadership visibility into its environment and a practical way to change providers if needed.
Use a short scorecard for the leadership discussion
| Review area | Evidence to request | Question for leadership |
|---|---|---|
| Service delivery | Priority-based response, restoration and resolution results | Can staff reliably return to work within agreed expectations? |
| Recurring problems | Repeat-issue trends and completed corrective actions | Are persistent disruptions being reduced? |
| Legal workflow fit | Support procedures and vendor escalation responsibilities | Does the service reflect how our firm operates? |
| Security and recovery | Control coverage, exceptions and restore-test results | Do we understand what is protected and what remains at risk? |
| Incident management | Escalation plan, exercise results and completed follow-up | Can the provider coordinate a serious event? |
| Strategy and cost | Roadmap, investment outcomes and complete service costs | Are we making informed technology decisions? |
Review several months of evidence and speak with representative users. Compare actual delivery with the agreed scope before attributing every gap to the provider. Some improvements may require funding or decisions from the firm.
Would you re-sign today?
Ask this after the evidence review. If the answer is yes, identify what is working and what should improve. If it is no, specify the changes needed to make the relationship acceptable.
For remediable gaps, agree on an improvement plan with owners, deadlines and measurable outcomes. For material failures, persistent lack of transparency or an inability to meet the firm's needs, begin a structured comparison of alternatives and plan continuity carefully.
The strongest reason to retain an MSP is a record of useful service, accountable delivery and sound decisions. The strongest reason to change is evidence that those requirements are not being met.
Allnext Legal helps law firms assess IT performance, support delivery and technology priorities so leadership can make informed decisions about its IT partnership.
Sources
Review Your Firm's IT Partnership.
Contact us
