For law, insurance and accounting firms we automate intake, document review and data entry — the work that is billed at cost rather than at rate. Every step keeps a human sign-off and a complete audit trail, because the output has to survive review. Four to eight weeks to production, at a fixed price.
Contracts, policies, and claims are read and re-keyed by hand — slow, expensive, and inconsistent.
New matters and policies queue for days waiting for someone to classify and route the paperwork.
Precedents and answers live in PDFs and DMS folders no one can search when a client is waiting.
Manual handling leaves gaps that fail audits and regulatory review — with no clear trail.
Extract clauses, parties, and key dates from documents and route them with validation.
Ask questions across precedents, policies, and prior matters and get cited answers in seconds.
Orchestrate intake, approvals, and deadlines with audit trail and human sign-off at each gate.
Connect your DMS, CRM, and billing so data flows once, cleanly, instead of being retyped.
Matter data stays inside your tenancy, models are used without training on your content, and anything touching privileged material is scoped to the people already on the matter.
Intake automation runs the conflict check before it does anything else. A flow that opens a matter the firm should have refused is worse than no flow.
Drafting, summarising and retrieval are automated. Advice, opinions and anything that gets signed are not, and we will not scope them.
Where automation touches billing, every entry keeps a traceable origin — because those entries do get challenged.
Chasing the documents a new matter needs is pure overhead, and it is the same list nearly every time.
Precedents, past advice and templates made searchable with citations, so nobody rebuilds what the firm already owns.
Engagement letters, proposals and standard clauses drafted from the matter record for a professional to finish.
We do not automate legal, tax or audit advice. The output is a draft for a qualified person, always.
A firm under about ten fee earners usually gets more from better templates than from a build.
If billable work is not recorded consistently today, automating around it only encodes the inconsistency.
Each page states the workflow, the systems it integrates with, what it costs and when it is the wrong choice.
Collects, checks and files everything a new client has to hand over, and chases whatever is missing.
Answers questions across your contract base with the document, version and clause attached to every answer.
Builds a first-draft proposal from the CRM record, past deals and your price book, ready for a human to finish.
Yes. We work inside your infrastructure where possible, sign DPAs and NDAs, encrypt data in transit and at rest, and keep a full audit trail. Models can be configured not to train on your data.
We don’t propose an off-the-shelf product either. The audit is there precisely to see where your process differs from the ordinary one, and the build is shaped around that difference. And if it turns out a standard tool covers you well enough, we’ll say so plainly — the process map stays with you in any case.
It’s a fair thing to ask, and responsibility matters more here than accuracy. A person answers for it, and the system is built so that they can: a doubtful case is never posted quietly, it goes to a review queue. Low confidence isn’t an error for us, it’s a route. Around 70% clears straight through and a person looks at the rest — and where exactly that line sits is yours to decide.
That’s a common requirement, and a reasonable one. We fit the setup to your data rules: if nothing may leave, the model runs locally inside your own perimeter, and the documents never cross it.
That’s not unusual, and it’s fine. Integrating without an API is the most underestimated line in a quote, which is why integration surface comes first among the four cost drivers, and why we don’t name a fixed price before the audit. Working without an API is perfectly possible — files, exports, email — it simply costs more, and it’s better to know that early. Which is why, fairly often, we build the API for you.
It happens often, and usually for one reason: the pilot was measured on the happy path and the exceptions were left for later — though the exceptions are where most of the work turns out to be. So we look at the share that clears without a person rather than at extraction accuracy, and we agree in advance who handles the rest, and how.
No, that isn’t what this is about. What goes is the retyping, not the people: decisions stay with a person — the disputed document, the non-standard transaction, the conversation with the client, the signature under the reporting. On one accounting project, closing a client month went from three days to four hours, not because anyone was let go, but because a qualified specialist stopped keying in details by hand. The time that frees up most often goes into growth: more clients with the same team, without the costs rising alongside.
It’s a fair question, and sometimes doing it yourselves really is the right answer. We say so when the volume doesn’t justify a build: below roughly 300 documents a month the arithmetic usually doesn’t work. The calculator on this site includes running costs, so you can weigh that up before you ever talk to us.
They do change, and that’s exactly what we build for: the model is a replaceable part here, not the foundation. The source of truth is our own database — the document, the counterparty, the entry. The model is attached to the side, and we update it whenever something better appears; for you that’s planned maintenance, not a rebuild.
We use cookies for analytics — to see which pages bring enquiries. Nothing else, and nothing before you agree. Cookie Policy