Law firms, 5 to 20 attorneys
There is a lot of room between a general chatbot and a research subscription you cannot afford.
Most small firms have landed in one of two places. Either people are quietly using a general chatbot with no rules around it, or somebody priced the tools built specifically for legal work, saw what a seat costs, and closed the tab.
Both are reasonable places to end up. Neither covers much ground, and the space in between is where most of the useful, boring, unglamorous answers live.
What the audit looks at
- What your practice management system already includes. Several of them added AI in the last two years, and in most cases it is on a tier rather than in the base plan. Knowing which side of that line you are on changes the answer completely.
- Whether you have a system at all. A lot of firms run on a shared drive, a calendar and email. That is not a failing, and the answer is not automatically to go and buy something. But it changes what is possible.
- What people are already using on their own. Usually a general chatbot, usually without anything written down, usually not discussed. Worth knowing before it is worth having a rule about.
- Where the time actually goes. Intake, conflicts, chasing documents, re-typing the same client details into three places, the first draft of things that are nearly the same every time.
- What you are allowed to do. There is now real published guidance on using these tools in practice, and it has more to say about client information and supervision than about the technology. It is worth reading once, properly, rather than absorbing secondhand.
The objection worth stating out loud
If you bill by the hour, work that takes less time is worth less money. That is not a misunderstanding to be corrected, it is arithmetic, and the usual answer to it is weak. Being told to take on six times the caseload is not an attractive offer to someone who went out on their own partly to avoid that.
So it is worth being straight about where this does and does not pay:
- Flat fee and contingency work. Time saved is money kept. The case is simple and it does not need dressing up.
- Work you already write off. Every firm has tasks that are necessary and unbillable. Intake, conflicts, chasing signatures, filing. Nothing is lost by making those faster.
- The work you turn away. Not more of the same at a higher volume, but the matters that currently do not fit.
- Straight hourly work you are happy with. Honestly, often nothing. If most of your practice is billed hourly and the hours are full, the document will say so.
Why 5 to 20 attorneys
Because that is the size where this is worth paying for. A solo practitioner's entire annual software budget is smaller than this audit, and we are not going to pretend otherwise or sell one anyway. Above twenty, you likely have someone whose job includes this.
We never ask to see client files. The session is a screen share and nothing leaves your office. No matter files, no documents, no logins. That keeps a straightforward engagement straightforward, and it means nothing here turns into a question about client confidentiality.
What it costs
The session, the written answer, and the walkthrough call. Credited in full against any build started within 60 days.
Everything above, plus a written section on what you are permitted to use, who checks the output, and what needs to be on paper. Credited the same way.
Two to three hours of your time, a written answer inside a week, and an hour to walk through it. No hourly billing, which we appreciate is a slightly funny thing for us to say to you.
Most firms your size take the first one. The governance section exists for firms that need a written position on file, and a lot of small practices sensibly decide a paragraph in the staff handbook covers it.