In the upcoming AI era, the critical initial choice may be the one between open-source and proprietary large language models (LLMs). Legal practice is per se based on handling highly sensitive and confidential data, governed by strict rules for legal professionals and ethical obligations. This makes the selection of an appropriate LLM not only a matter of performance and cost but also a question of data security, confidentiality, and compliance. Below we explore the key differences, advantages, and drawbacks of open-source versus proprietary LLMs, focusing on their suitability for legal applications.
I. Understanding Open Source and Proprietary LLMs – A Technical Perspective
Open Source LLMs are models whose code, model weights, and architecture are publicly available, allowing users to scrutinise and developers to inspect, modify, and deploy them on their infrastructure. Other than with proprietary models, users can fully understand how an open souce model operates, access the model’s weights, and retrain or fine-tune the model using proprietary data. However, the deployment of open-source LLMs typically requires significant computing power and technical expertise, but it provides full control over data security and model behaviour. Examples include LLaMA 3, a high-performance open model developed by Meta AI, or Mistral 7B by French company Mistral AI, known for its optimised architecture and cost-effective deployment.
Proprietary LLMs are closed-source models developed and maintained by commercial vendors. These models are accessible only through APIs and cloud platforms, and users do not have access to the model’s underlying architecture or weights. Vendors often invest heavily in training on vast datasets, resulting in state-of-the-art performance in tasks like legal text generation, document summarization, and natural language processing. However, reliance on external servers introduces potential confidentiality and data sovereignty risks, as data is processed outside the user’s infrastructure. Examples include OpenAI’s GPT-4, Anthropic’s Claude, or Google’s Gemini.
In general, the pros and cons of the two different approaches to AI can be summarised as follows:
| Dimension | Open-Source LLMs | Proprietary LLMs |
|---|---|---|
| Cost (source 1, source 2) | No licensing fees; however, it requires investment in hardware and expertise. | Pay-as-you-go, with managed infrastructure and updates. |
| Transparency (source 1, source 2) | Full access to code and data – ideal for auditing and compliance. | Black-box approach – limited visibility into model training and data sources. |
| Performance (source 1, source 2) | Competitive with proprietary models, especially with domain-specific fine-tuning. | High accuracy and reliability, particularly in general-purpose tasks. |
| Control / Vendor Lock-In (source 1, source 2, source 3, source 4) | Complete control over deployment, customization, and data handling. Avoids lock-in; organizations own the model and infrastructure. | Limited customisation; reliant on vendor policies. Significant lock-in risk due to dependency on vendor services. |
| Support (source 1, source 2) | Community-driven support and in-house expertise. | Enterprise-grade support and maintenance. |
II. Criteria for Selecting an LLM for Legal Applications
Besides the apparent criteria of costs and performance, LLM application in the legal domain must consider that handling confidential data is a core responsibility of legal professions, governed by codes of conduct and professional ethics. Legal professionals must ensure that client information, case data, and privileged communications are protected from unauthorised access, breaches, and misuse. Therefore, selecting the right LLM for legal applications requires careful consideration of confidentiality, data security and sovereignty, and regulatory compliance.
Confidentiality and Data Security
In the legal sector, safeguarding client data is a fundamental obligation. LLMs used in legal applications must have robust data security measures to prevent unauthorized access and data breaches. Key considerations include data encryption, data retention policies, and response plans for potential breaches.
Compliance with Legal and Regulatory Standards
Legal professionals must ensure that any LLM used adheres to data protection regulations such as GDPR. The ability to audit and verify data processing practices is essential, particularly when handling cross-border data transfers and sensitive legal information.
Customization and Fine-Tuning
LLMs used in legal contexts often require specialized language processing capabilities. Customization allows firms to tailor models to specific legal domains, integrating legal terminology and structuring complex legal arguments effectively.
Control over Infrastructure and Data
Maintaining control over data infrastructure is essential in the legal sector, where confidentiality is a top priority. Firms must assess data flow, storage, and processing arrangements to mitigate risks of data exposure and vendor lock-in.
Integration and Interoperability
Seamless integration with existing legal systems – such as document management platforms, legal databases, and case management tools – is crucial for workflow efficiency. Effective integration reduces friction and ensures continuity in legal workflows.
III. Appropriateness of Open Source vs Proprietary LLMs for Legal Applications
The table below evaluates how open-source and proprietary LLMs perform in key legal application areas based on the criteria identified in the previous section. The scoring system is as follows:
(+2): Strongly aligned with the respective requirements.
(+1): Somewhat aligned with the respective requirements.
(0): Neutral or situational.
(-1): Some limitations with respect to the respective requirements (further scrutiny advisable).
(-2): Significant drawbacks as regards the respective requirements (potentially an exclusion criterion).
| Dimension | Open-Source LLMs (Legal Applications) | Proprietary LLMs (Legal Applications) |
| Confidentiality (source 1, source 2) | Data stays on-premises, ensuring full control over client information (+2). Ideal for sensitive client data. | Data processed externally potentially increased risk of exposure (-2). Potential waiver of privilege if data is transmitted. |
| Control (source 1, source 2) | Full control over infrastructure and data flow (+2). Minimizes vendor lock-in risks and ensures data sovereignty. | High risk of vendor lock-in (-2). Dependence on vendor infrastructure may lead to limited data control and potential service disruptions. |
| Compliance (source 1, source 2) | Full access to model internals—easier to verify GDPR/HIPAA compliance (+2). The user maintains direct control. | Compliance guarantees are provided via SLAs (+1), but limited transparency in data handling and storage. |
| Data Security (source 1, source 2) | Complete encryption and access control—suitable for sensitive legal data (+2). No third-party exposure. | Security managed by the vendor (+1). Dependent on external security protocols and data management policies. |
| Performance (source 1, source 2) | Capable of high performance with domain-specific fine-tuning (+2). Requires substantial computational resources and expertise. Without fine-tunig regular performance only (+1). | Strong out-of-the-box performance (+2). Optimized for general-purpose tasks but may lack domain-specific precision. |
| Cost (source 1, source 2) | No licensing fees but requires significant investment in hardware and maintenance (+1). Long-term cost efficiency may be high. | Pay-as-you-go model with ongoing costs for API access and updates (0). Predictable but potentially expensive over time. |
| Customization (source 1, source 2) | Fine-tuning on proprietary legal data—ideal for specialised applications (+2). Custom AI solutions for specific legal tasks. | Limited or costly customisation options (0). Tuning may be restricted to API-based adjustments. |
| Integration (source 1, source 2) | Seamless integration into existing legal systems (+2). Tailored integrations, especially for internal legal databases. | Easier integration with commercial legal tech platforms (+2). Fast deployment with minimal development effort. |
IV. Conclusion
Based on the scoring system applied in the table above (ranging from +16 to -16 points), open-source LLMs achieve a total of +14 or +15 points, depending on whether or not domain-specific fine tunig is used to increase model performance. This demonstrates open source LLM’s very strong alignment of with key requirements for legal application of AI. Proprietary LLMs, while offering excellent performance, accumulate only +4 points, primarily due to their weaknesses with regard to confidentiality and control over infrastructure and data.
Recommendation: For legal professions and law firms prioritizing data confidentiality and regulatory compliance, open-source LLMs present a compelling option due to their ability to be deployed on-premises and fully controlled internally. However, for less sensitive applications or rapid deployment needs, proprietary LLMs may still provide acceptable capabilities, especially when vendor agreements include robust data security assurances. A hybrid approach may leverage the strengths of both – deploying open-source models for highly confidential tasks while utilizing proprietary systems for less sensitive, general-purpose legal work.
Visit ALPHALECT.ai to learn more about how our innovative Legal AI products can empower your firm to navigate the evolving landscape of patent law with confidence.
At ALPHALECT.ai, we explore the power of AI to revolutionise the European IP industry, building on decades of collective experience in the industry and following a clear vision for its future. For answers to common questions, explore our detailed FAQ. If you require personalised assistance or wish to learn more about how legal AI can benefit innovators, SMEs, legal practitioners, and innovation and society as a whole, don’t hesitate to contact us at your convenience.