Is this defensible to the bar?

Everything an agent did is on the record and exportable, separately from the conversation transcripts. Your data stays in the EU, enforced in infrastructure. You hold a dedicated encryption key, each customer’s data is isolated, and your content trains no provider’s model.

Will you sign a data-processing agreement?

Bring the question to the first conversation and we will answer it directly. We are not going to publish compliance documentation we have not had reviewed, or imply paperwork exists before it does — that is exactly the kind of claim the people we sell to are trained to check.

Will it give legal advice it should not?

Your standing instructions — what this firm never promises — apply to every agent at once. Asked something outside what you have written down, it says so and hands the conversation to a person with the whole history rather than producing a plausible sentence.

Legal

Legal automation with AI, for the hours before a matter earns anything

Qualifying an enquiry, checking conflicts, booking the consultation and drafting the engagement letter are all billable hours spent on someone who isn't yet a client. AI handles intake, drafts from your own precedents and answers status questions, with confidentiality you can explain to the bar and to your client.

Book a demo

Problems it solves

Four tasks that cost a law practice its margin

The unbilled work around a matter: before it starts, while it runs and every time a client asks about it.

Intake, before any fee is earned

Enquiries arrive by form, email and phone, and qualifying them, checking conflicts and booking a consultation takes a lawyer's time.

Routine drafting from scattered precedents

Engagement letters, standard clauses and client updates, from precedents that live in individual lawyers' folders.

Status, asked repeatedly

Clients email to ask where a matter stands, and a fee earner stops to look it up.

Confidentiality, defensible to the bar

Any tool that touches client material has to be explainable to the bar and to the client. That is a buying condition, not a preference.

How we help

Structured intake, and drafting from your own precedents

A widget or a form qualifies the enquiry, captures the facts and books a consultation on the right partner's calendar, so the first lawyer involved meets a qualified matter rather than a blank enquiry. Drafting works from your own precedents, not a general model's idea of a clause.

Intake that qualifies, captures the facts and books the consultation.
Engagement letters and standard clauses drafted from your own precedents.
A client portal where a matter’s documents and status answer for themselves.
An internal assistant so a junior asks the precedent rather than a partner.

How we compare

Where other tools stop and your own precedents begin

Practice suites with AI, generic assistants and automation platforms are each good at something. The question is whether they draft from your precedents, act in the systems you already run and leave a record of what was said on your behalf.

Feature	Practice suites with AI	Automation platforms
Answers from your own files, with the source cited	Inside its own records
Acts in the systems you already run	Its own, not the others
Reaches a portal that has no interface for machines
A review step before anything irreversible		Assembled by hand
A branded place for your clients	Sometimes
Run by a practice manager, not a builder
Drafts from your own precedents, not a general corpus	Within the matter
A record of what was said on the firm’s behalf	Partial

What it uses

The parts of the platform a law practice uses most

Intake through the widget, forms and phone line, a portal for matters, your precedents as a private source, and roles so a paralegal and a partner don't reach the same material.

What law practices ask first

Bring your engagement letter

And the intake enquiry you most recently wished had arrived qualified.