Your attorneys bill by the hour. They shouldn't spend those hours on admin.

All systems are designed to comply with attorney-client privilege requirements. We don't use shared AI models that could expose client data. Every implementation is reviewed against your jurisdiction's bar rules.

We work with your general counsel and review the relevant state bar opinions on technology use. We've implemented compliant systems for firms in 15+ states.

Yes. Access is scoped at the matter and client level. You can opt clients out, exclude practice groups, or restrict to internal-only data sources.

No. We use enterprise model deployments with no-training agreements, and we keep privileged work in tenants you control. We can also run local or VPC-isolated where required.

We integrate with all the major DMS platforms. Documents stay where they live. The AI reads from and writes back to your DMS, not a separate silo.

It frees attorney hours from non-billable admin (intake, status updates, conflict checks, internal summaries) so they can spend more time on billable work or rainmaking. Most firms see realization rates rise.

With confidence. Every system we build is auditable, supervised, and consistent with the ABA's guidance on competent and ethical AI use. Most clients read it as a sign you're investing in better service.

You're right to be skeptical of everyone selling you AI - most of it is the same hype in a new deck. But the reflex to hire is its own trap. Another paralegal or intake coordinator runs roughly $85K-$120K loaded, and ten of those roles is about $1M a year, every year, for admin a system handles once (a stated assumption, not a firm's billed result). Your current people stay and do the judgment work clients pay for; the system does the intake, conflict checks, status updates, and time capture. You move from a firm where every growth step needs another hire to one where your attorneys bill more of the hours they're already working. This is about the roles you haven't posted yet, not the people you have.