AI for legal
Patterns, no client yetSmall and mid-sized firms where the partners are the product and the admin load is uncapped.
A law firm's revenue is bounded by billable hours, which makes every non-billable hour a direct loss. Intake, document assembly, matter status, and chasing your own clients for documents are all non-billable, all repetitive, and all growing. Those are the only patterns this page is about.
No client yet
We have not built for a firm
Ops only
Nothing that practices law
Start here
A workshop, not a pitch
Where the time goes
We have not built a system inside a law firm, so read this as a considered take on the operational patterns rather than a claim about your practice. All of it is firm operations. None of it is practice.
A prospective client calls, and finding out whether there is a matter here takes a real conversation. Most of those conversations end in no. The screening is a partner's time at a rate nobody is paying, and it is the same twenty questions every time.
Screening happens at partner rates
Somebody opens the most recent similar document, saves a copy, and edits. It works, until the copy carries forward a clause from a matter it should not have, or misses an update the firm made three months ago and only told two people about.
Copy-and-edit carries the last matter forward
Clients want to know the status of their matter. The answer is in a docket, a file, and a lawyer's head. Producing it takes ten non-billable minutes, and it happens constantly, so it either eats the day or the client feels ignored.
Status is assembled by hand, every time
Half the delay on a matter is waiting on the client for things they said they would send. Chasing them is nobody's favorite job, it is not billable, and if it slips the matter slips with it, and the firm looks slow for a reason that was not the firm.
The matter waits on a chase nobody wants
How this firm handles this kind of matter lives in the partners. Associates learn by having work returned to them. When a partner leaves, a decade of judgment leaves with them, and nothing on any server captured it.
A decade of judgment, unwritten
Every idea above touches client material, which raises a real question about what may be sent where and to whom. That question is a legitimate reason firms have not automated anything, and it is a decision that belongs to the firm, not to a vendor.
Client material changes what is allowed
The machine
The operational machine around the practice of law. Only the outer ring is on this page.
01
02
03
04
The split
Nothing on this page practices law. It does not advise, it does not decide, and it does not determine a conflict. This distinction is not a disclaimer at the bottom of a page, it is what makes the systems buildable at all. The useful frame is that everything here is what a very good non-lawyer administrator could do if they had perfect recall and no other tasks, and every output still lands in front of a lawyer.
What we build
01
The same twenty questions asked consistently, with the answers structured, so a partner reads a summary instead of conducting the screening. The no's get filtered before they cost partner time. The yes's arrive with the facts already assembled.
02
The first draft built from the firm's current template and this matter's facts, rather than from a copy of the last similar document. The failure mode this removes is a clause traveling forward from a matter it should never have touched.
03
The status assembled from the record, drafted for a lawyer to check and send. Ten non-billable minutes becomes thirty seconds of review, and it happens constantly.
04
The outstanding list, tracked and followed up on a schedule. Not billable, not anybody's favorite job, and the single most common reason a matter is sitting still.
05
How this firm handles this kind of matter, in the firm's own cloud, so an associate can read it instead of learning it by having work returned six times. This is also what keeps a partner's departure from taking a decade of judgment with it.
06
Draft entries from what actually happened during the day, for the timekeeper to correct and approve. The most consequential admin task in a firm is also the one everybody does worst, at 7pm, from memory.
Under the hood
Practice management
Documents
Billing
Your practice management system is the system of record and it stays there. The first thing to work out, before anybody scopes anything, is what client material may move and where, because in this category that answer decides what is buildable. It is your firm's determination to make, not ours.
Principles
This page exists because firms search for it, and it is written from operational patterns rather than from a build we did. Every number on this site belongs to a system we shipped and can point at. There is no legal one. The construction and insurance pages are where the receipts are.
No advice, no strategy, no conflicts determination. The systems on this page are firm operations. If a vendor blurs that line while selling to you, they are telling you how they build, and you should listen.
Copy-and-edit from the last matter is how a firm's documents drift, and how something travels forward that should not have. A system that assembles from the current template makes the template worth maintaining, which most firms already know and few can afford the time to do.
Billable hours are the ceiling, so nothing that speeds up the practice itself is the point. The opportunity is the intake screening, the status email, the chasing, and the time capture. Each one is small. Together they are the reason the partners have no capacity.
Same approach, different language
Professional services
Agencies, consultancies, and expert firms where the product is judgment and the constraint is the founder's calendar.
We speak the language →Insurance
Medicare brokers, independent agencies, and the licensed agents who live and die by enrollment windows.
Live system →Financial services
Advisory firms, lenders, and finance teams where senior people spend their day gathering what they need to think about.
Patterns, no client yet →Questions
No. We build for contractors, roofing and exterior companies, and insurance brokers, and those pages have real systems with real numbers on them. This page is a read on the operational patterns in a firm, written because firms look for it, and nothing more. If you want proof before a conversation, read the construction page.
No. No advice, no strategy, no conflicts determinations, no document that goes out without a lawyer reviewing it. The frame we would hold to is that these systems do what an excellent non-lawyer administrator could do with perfect recall and no competing tasks. Everything they produce lands in front of a lawyer, and everything consequential waits for one.
It is the first question, and it decides what can be built rather than being a footnote on the build. What client material may move, where it may go, and which vendors are permitted in the path is the firm's determination and not a vendor's. Our position is that a workflow that only works by putting client material somewhere it should not be is a workflow we would tell you not to build.
It can run the structured part: the same twenty questions asked consistently, with the answers organized so a partner reads a summary instead of conducting the call. It cannot decide whether to take the matter, and it cannot make a conflicts determination. It can surface a possible conflict for a person to rule on, which is a different thing and a useful one.
It can assemble a first draft from your current template and this matter's facts, which is a meaningful improvement over copying the last similar document and editing it. The value is not speed, it is that the draft comes from the template the firm actually maintains rather than from whatever traveled forward through six copies. A lawyer still reviews and signs everything.
A readiness workshop. One session, one real workflow mapped end to end, and you leave with the map and a dated plan whether or not you build anything with us. In a category where we have no case study and the confidentiality constraints are real, paying us to guess would be a bad trade.
You do, from day one. The code is in your repository, the knowledge base holding the firm's method is in your cloud, and the accounts are in your name. For a firm, handing the written version of your own judgment to a vendor who controls access to it would be a strange arrangement.
Read next
Explainer
What an AI-legible business actually looks like, the five-point readiness checklist to score your own operation, why one person is usually compensating for every broken handoff, and the 90-day path from messy to legible.
Operations
How to reduce admin overhead without adding staff by redesigning intake, follow-up, and reporting workflows into systems that run without constant manual attention.
Strategy
Why business operators should build portable markdown knowledge bases before relying too heavily on any one AI model, platform, or vendor memory layer.
Where to start
Find the bottleneck, price the fix, build the system, then keep compounding it. The four engagements are how you buy it, and you can start on any rung.
See the four engagements →Get started
Book a 30 minute call. We find the one place your work waits on you, and you get a straight answer about whether AI is the fix. No pitch, no deck.