AI for law firms
Intake, precedent research, and document prep without the grind. 5x ROI in 30 days, or we work free.
- Litigation boutiques
- Full-service firms
- Insolvency practices
- Immigration firms
- Personal injury
Teams we build for
- Hoyes Michalos
- Nurse Next Door
- Fedi
- UBC Sauder
- Merchant House Capital
- Picton Mahoney
- Campbell Froh May & Rice LLP
- Barnakl
- Hungerford
- Breez
Teams we build for
- Hoyes Michalos
- Nurse Next Door
- Fedi
- UBC Sauder
- Merchant House Capital
- Picton Mahoney
- Campbell Froh May & Rice LLP
- Barnakl
- Hungerford
- Breez
Teams we build for
- Hoyes Michalos
- Nurse Next Door
- Fedi
- UBC Sauder
- Merchant House Capital
- Picton Mahoney
- Campbell Froh May & Rice LLP
- Barnakl
- Hungerford
- Breez
Assembly bills like law until the client refuses to pay for it.
Standard documents drafted from scratch, every matter, and sophisticated clients now read the bill line by line and push back on hours that look like assembly. The first draft should arrive for review, not get typed.
The firm has answered this before. Nobody can find where.
The closest precedent is in a closed matter from 2021, in a folder named after a partner who left. Finding it takes longer than answering again, so the firm pays twice for the same thinking.
Intake leaks matters.
Slow conflict checks and manual follow-up lose clients you already won. The retainer that takes four days to open goes to the firm that opened it in one.
Fixed fees turned assembly hours into cost.
On a flat-fee matter every hour of drafting, formatting and chasing comes out of profit instead of onto an invoice. The hours did not change. Who pays for them did.
Undertakings run on memory.
The chase for missing documents and outstanding undertakings lives in someone's head and an inbox. When that person is in discoveries all week, the file goes quiet and the client notices.
Your lawyers already use AI. The firm just does not govern it.
Over 90 percent of legal professionals use at least one AI tool while firm deployment sits far below that (Wolters Kluwer, 2026). The gap is privileged material in personal accounts.
Proof, honestly
We have not published a law firm case study yet, and we say so. Founding clients get priority scheduling, direct founder involvement, and a co-published case study once the numbers are real. The 5x ROI guarantee applies from day one.
We guarantee 5x ROI inside 30 days of deployment, in writing, measured against a baseline you sign before we build. If the system misses the bar, we keep working for free until it clears.
Built around your rules
| Regime | What it demands here | How the system complies |
|---|---|---|
| Solicitor-client privilege | Privileged material must never persist outside firm control and must never train a model. | Documents live in the firm-controlled store, model calls run under no-training, no-retention terms, and only the draft comes back across the line. |
| Law Society of BC, Code of Professional Conduct | The lawyer remains responsible for every work product, and client confidentiality survives every tool choice. | Every agent output is a draft with a named reviewer. Nothing files, sends or advises. Confidentiality is enforced in the database, not in a policy memo. |
| LSBC guidance on generative AI | Due diligence on cloud and AI providers before client data touches them. | Builds are designed around the guidance, including its cloud due-diligence checklist, with provider terms settled in writing before the first document moves. |
| Court practice directions on AI | Several Canadian courts, the Federal Court among them, require disclosure and human ownership of AI-assisted filings, and the rules differ by forum. | The court document agent produces drafts a lawyer reviews, owns and files, and we help the firm write the disclosure policy so nobody improvises at the registry counter. |
| Law Society trust accounting rules | Trust money moves only under human authority. | Agents never write to the trust ledger. They prepare reconciliation and reminders around it, and signoff stays with people. |
| BC PIPA and PIPEDA | Client personal information handled lawfully, with residency answered before anything is built. | Residency is scoped per engagement and stated in writing, and where Canadian residency is required the architecture is designed for it first. |
The regimes that govern law firms, what each demands, and how the system complies
Regime
- Solicitor-client privilege
What it demands here
Privileged material must never persist outside firm control and must never train a model.
How the system complies
Documents live in the firm-controlled store, model calls run under no-training, no-retention terms, and only the draft comes back across the line.
- Law Society of BC, Code of Professional Conduct
What it demands here
The lawyer remains responsible for every work product, and client confidentiality survives every tool choice.
How the system complies
Every agent output is a draft with a named reviewer. Nothing files, sends or advises. Confidentiality is enforced in the database, not in a policy memo.
- LSBC guidance on generative AI
What it demands here
Due diligence on cloud and AI providers before client data touches them.
How the system complies
Builds are designed around the guidance, including its cloud due-diligence checklist, with provider terms settled in writing before the first document moves.
- Court practice directions on AI
What it demands here
Several Canadian courts, the Federal Court among them, require disclosure and human ownership of AI-assisted filings, and the rules differ by forum.
How the system complies
The court document agent produces drafts a lawyer reviews, owns and files, and we help the firm write the disclosure policy so nobody improvises at the registry counter.
- Law Society trust accounting rules
What it demands here
Trust money moves only under human authority.
How the system complies
Agents never write to the trust ledger. They prepare reconciliation and reminders around it, and signoff stays with people.
- BC PIPA and PIPEDA
What it demands here
Client personal information handled lawfully, with residency answered before anything is built.
How the system complies
Residency is scoped per engagement and stated in writing, and where Canadian residency is required the architecture is designed for it first.
Privileged material never leaves firm-controlled systems. No-training, no-retention API terms are an architecture requirement, not a settings checkbox.
A corporate associate's Tuesday
The referral becomes a matter while she is in a meeting.
A referral lands at 11am while she is in a closing call. By the time she is out, the case information is gathered, the conflict check has run against the firm's Clio records, and a draft engagement letter is parked on the file, flagged for review.
She clears the conflict report.
humanTwo flagged parties, one a former client of the Vancouver office. She walks it to the responsible partner, they clear it, and she approves the matter opening. Nothing opened itself.
The indemnity question is searched, not researched.
She asks how the firm has capped indemnities in share purchases like this one. The system searches closed matters in iManage and returns a ranked list, each hit carrying its matter and page.
She does the law.
humanShe adapts the closest clause to the deal on her desk and drafts the operative sections herself. The precedent gave her the firm's answer. The judgment about this deal is hers.
The ancillary documents assemble themselves.
Resolutions, closing certificates and the officer's certificate are drafted from the firm's own templates, deal parameters filled in, sources attached to every operative clause.
She signs off, or she does not.
humanShe marks the drafts up the way she would mark up a junior's work and approves them for the closing book. No document leaves the matter file without her name on the review.
The chase runs while she bills.
Outstanding undertakings are listed, the missing consent is chased with the other side's clerk copied, and a matter status line is written for the client partner. Nobody composed an update email.
How we build it for law firms
Start with one practice group.
We index that group's closed matters and precedent and measure citation accuracy against work the firm has already stood behind. One group, one measurable answer, before the firm commits.
Automate the first pass, never the filing.
Document review and drafting produce a draft with its sources attached. A lawyer signs it. Nothing leaves the building without a person who carries the professional obligation.
Extend across groups only after the walls hold.
Matter-level access control is tested with real conflict scenarios before a second group is added. Conflict walls are the reason firms fail at this, not model quality.
What we will not automate
Legal advice, filings and anything that reaches a client or a court unreviewed. We also will not build a system that answers from general legal knowledge rather than the firm's own file, because that is how citations get invented.
The hard questions
Free · 3-5 days
Know your number in five days.
We map your operations, find the highest-ROI automations, and hand you a ranked plan with the payback math attached. Yours to keep, whoever builds it.
Prefer to talk first? Book 15 minutes with our team. No pitch deck.