Billable hours shouldn't mean re-reading the same clause twice.
AI operating systems for firms buried in contract review, discovery, and client intake.
Legal AI adoption has doubled in a year, but most of that is associates pasting text into a chat window — not a system the firm can rely on, audit, or bill against safely. We build the layer underneath: contract review and clause-extraction agents grounded in your own precedent library, an intake and conflict-check assistant, and research copilots that cite their sources instead of inventing them. Privilege and confidentiality are architecture decisions, not an afterthought.
Part of
Legal Services is one vertical view of a single system. The layer underneath — retrieval, scoped permissions, evaluation, and the audit trail — is the same one we build in every sector.
Where AI earns its keep.
The workflows in legal services where AI does real work today — not a someday roadmap, the jobs it can take off your plate now.
Contract review agent
Extracts and flags key clauses against your playbook, grounded in citations back to the source document.
Research copilot
Retrieval-grounded legal research that cites its sources — no invented case law.
Intake & conflict-check assistant
Structures new-matter intake and runs conflict checks before a partner ever sees the file.
Document drafting support
Drafts first passes of routine filings and correspondence from your own templates and precedent.
Don’t take our word. Take the call.
3 of the agents above, live in your browser right now. Pick the job you actually need covered, press call, and talk to it the way your customers would — objections included.
A real call, not a recording. Press call once, then just talk — it hears you stop and answers. No buttons to hold.
This browser can’t capture speech — you can still type your side of the call. Chrome, Edge, or Safari for the full thing.
Live agents on fictional businesses and invented records. Nothing you say or paste here is recorded or stored — it lives in this tab and dies with it. A production deployment runs on your data, your systems, and your policy.
A clause, from intake to reviewed redline
Not a feature list — the mechanism, step by step, from trigger to logged outcome.
Capture
The incoming contract is read against your own precedent library and playbook — not a generic clause database — so the flags reflect how your firm actually negotiates, not a market average.
Extract & flag
Key clauses are extracted and checked against the playbook, each flag grounded in a citation back to the exact page and paragraph it came from, so the reviewing associate can verify the source in seconds.
Route for review
The draft redline goes to the responsible associate or partner before anything reaches the client or opposing counsel. Nothing is sent on the matter's behalf.
Log
The redline, the clauses flagged, and who approved the final version log into the matter file — an audit trail that exists at the time of drafting, not reconstructed after the fact.
Illustrative — the events this system emits, not a log from any client’s production run.
Every part of it. Not the demo part.
The whole operation, workstream by workstream — including the unglamorous pieces that decide whether any of the rest of it works.
New-matter intake & conflict check
New-matter intake is structured from the client's own information, not a blank form, and an automated conflict check runs against the firm's client and matter database before a partner ever sees the file — a possible conflict is flagged for a partner's judgment, never cleared automatically.
Contract clause extraction & redlining
An incoming contract is read against the firm's own precedent library and playbook, not a generic clause database. Key clauses are extracted and flagged with a citation to the exact page and paragraph they came from, then routed to the responsible associate or partner — nothing reaches a client or opposing counsel until a lawyer signs off.
Legal research grounded in cited sources
A research question is answered with retrieval-grounded citations to the actual case law, statute, or secondary source it pulled from — never a case that sounds right but wasn't checked. Where nothing on point is found, it says so plainly instead of filling the gap.
Document drafting from templates & precedent
Routine filings and correspondence get a first-pass draft pulled from the firm's own templates and prior matters with a similar fact pattern, so an associate edits a grounded starting point instead of drafting from a blank page.
Docket & deadline tracking
The practice management system's calendar is read daily and upcoming filing deadlines, statutes of limitations, and court dates are flagged well ahead of time, with a drafted reminder for the responsible attorney — a deadline is never marked handled until a person confirms the filing or extension actually happened.
Precedent & clause library maintenance
As new agreements are reviewed, clauses that deviate meaningfully from the existing playbook are flagged for a partner to decide whether the playbook itself should change — the library stays current from real usage instead of drifting stale between periodic reviews.
Client communication drafting
First-pass status updates and correspondence are drafted from the matter file itself — what's actually happened, what's next — for the responsible attorney to edit and send, not a template that has to be rewritten from scratch every time.
Matter audit trail
Every extraction, draft, and research answer logs who reviewed and approved it directly into the matter file at the time it happened, so the record a malpractice review or bill audit needs already exists rather than being reconstructed months later.
The numbers aren’t ours.
Published industry figures and the rules themselves, each with its source named — this is the gap the build is aimed at, not a claim about our results.
Tell us which part of legal services is the bottleneck.
What it will never do.
Enforced outside the model, in the control layer — these are constraints the system can't talk itself out of, not instructions we hope it follows.
- 01Never sends a redline, research memo, correspondence, or filing to a client, opposing counsel, or the court without the responsible associate or partner approving it first.
- 02Never cites a case, statute, or clause it didn't actually retrieve — every citation points to the exact source and page it pulled from, or says plainly it found nothing.
- 03Never resolves a possible conflict itself — a flagged conflict routes to a partner's judgment, never an automatic clearance.
- 04Never grants blanket access across matters — access is scoped per matter the same way a new associate's would be, logged and reviewed.
- 05Never treats a docket deadline as handled until a person confirms the filing or extension actually happened.
- 06Never overwrites the firm's own playbook or precedent library on its own authority — a deviation is flagged for a partner to decide, not applied automatically.
- 07Never carries one matter's content into work on an unrelated matter, even where the client is the same.
- 08Never replaces the firm's document or practice management system as the system of record — it reads and writes inside the one the firm already runs.
Built for the rules of your industry.
Services that fit this industry.
Generative AI Applications
LLM apps, RAG over your data, and AI features that ship inside real products.
AI Evaluation & Observability
Evaluation suites that catch drift early.
AI Security & Compliance Engineering
Scoped permissions, audit trails, and compliance-aligned delivery for AI that touches real systems.
What it plugs into.
An AI operating system only earns that name if it runs inside the systems you already have — not beside them.
Asked before the contract, not after.
No — every draft routes to the responsible associate or partner for review before it leaves the firm. The agent drafts and cites the clause or source it used; a lawyer decides what actually goes out.
Access is scoped per matter the same way a new associate's access would be — logged, boundaried, and reviewed — rather than one system with blanket read access across every file in the firm.
No — it removes the drafting and searching between them and the decision, not the decision itself. An associate still approves every redline and research memo; a partner still owns the matter strategy. What changes is how much of their day goes to first drafts and citation-chasing versus reviewing and deciding.
It says so. The system is built to refuse a fabricated citation rather than fill the gap with something plausible-sounding — a 'nothing on point found' answer is the correct behavior, not a failure, and it's the whole reason grounded retrieval exists instead of an open chat window.
The paperwork load per matter is often worse at a smaller firm, not better — there's no dedicated docket clerk or a paralegal whose whole job is conflict-checking. We scope the first build to one workstream, usually contract review or intake, so you see it working on a live matter before it touches the rest.
Weeks, not a season — we start with the highest-volume workstream, usually contract review or research, measure it against your current turnaround, and expand into the other workstreams once that one has proven itself.
Let's put AI to work in your business.
A 30-minute call. You bring the workflow or the roadmap — we'll tell you what's feasible, what it costs, and what we'd build first.