Industry
Matter management, document automation and conflict checking with privilege, retention rules and trust accounting designed in from the start.
NDA on request · Free, no-obligation estimate · Reply within one business day
Law firms and legal departments run on a handful of processes that generic business software does not model correctly: a conflict check has to run against related parties and prior representations before a matter can even open, document assembly has to preserve privilege markings through every revision, and trust accounting has to separate client funds with a level of rigor an ordinary invoicing system was never built for.
We build matter management systems, document assembly tools with clause libraries, and client portals that integrate with Clio, iManage or NetDocuments rather than existing as a disconnected extra system. Where AI assists with contract review or summarization, we scope it to stay inside the line between tool-assisted drafting and the unauthorized practice of law.
Trust accounting and IOLTA-compliant billing get built to the segregation and reporting rules your state bar actually enforces, and retention schedules are built as configuration since they vary by jurisdiction and matter type, not as a single hardcoded rule.
The problem
A real conflict check has to search across related entities, prior representations and adverse parties, not just an exact name match, or a genuine conflict slips through undetected until it becomes a malpractice exposure.
Templates and clause libraries speed up drafting, but every version generated has to carry the correct privilege and confidentiality markings through redlines and revisions, not just on the final signed copy.
IOLTA and equivalent trust accounting rules require client funds to be tracked separately from firm operating funds with an audit trail a bar examiner can follow, which most general accounting software does not model correctly out of the box.
How long a file has to be kept, and when it can be destroyed, depends on jurisdiction, practice area and sometimes the specific matter, so a single retention rule hardcoded into a system will eventually be wrong for some subset of files.
A tool that summarizes or drafts is useful; a tool that appears to give legal advice to a non-lawyer client crosses into unauthorized practice of law territory in most jurisdictions, and that line has to be designed in deliberately.
Litigation holds and document review at scale need a documented, defensible process, since a court can challenge not just what was found but how the search was conducted.
What we build
Matter opening, staffing, deadlines and status tracking built to integrate with or extend Clio or a similar practice management platform, rather than duplicate it.
Automated search across related entities, prior matters and adverse parties at intake, flagging potential conflicts for review before a matter opens rather than after.
Clause libraries and template-driven drafting that carry privilege and confidentiality markings through every generated version and redline.
Client fund segregation, three-way reconciliation and billing built to the specific trust accounting rules your bar association enforces.
Secure document sharing and case status access for clients, integrated with your document management system so nothing has to be manually copied into a separate portal.
Contract review and document summarization tools scoped to assist an attorney's judgment, with the unauthorized practice of law boundary built into how results are presented to non-lawyer users.
Litigation hold notices, custodian tracking and defensible search documented at each step, so the process itself can withstand a challenge, not only the result.
A name-match conflict check misses the conflicts that actually create liability: a parent company, a former client under a different entity name, or a witness represented in an unrelated matter years earlier. We build conflict checking to search across related entities and historical matter data, surfacing possible matches for an attorney's review at intake rather than relying on staff to remember every prior representation.
We build clause libraries and template assembly so privilege and confidentiality markings propagate automatically through every generated draft, redline and exported version, since a marking that only appears on the final signed copy does nothing to protect the drafts that circulated before it.
We design AI-assisted contract review and summarization to present output as a drafting aid reviewed by a licensed attorney, not as advice delivered directly to a client. That distinction shapes interface decisions as much as backend logic, since how a result is framed to a non-lawyer user is part of what keeps a tool on the right side of unauthorized practice of law rules.
Services
Solutions
Technology
FAQ
Yes. We build against Clio's API to keep matter, client and billing data in sync, so a custom tool extends what Clio already handles rather than duplicating matter records in a second system.
We build the search to check related entities, prior matter history and known adverse parties, not just an exact name match, and we surface possible matches for attorney review rather than auto-clearing or auto-blocking a matter.
Yes, though the specific segregation and reporting rules are built per jurisdiction since IOLTA requirements differ by state bar. We scope which jurisdictions' rules the system needs to support before implementation.
Not as we build it. The tool surfaces flagged clauses and summaries for a licensed attorney to review and approve, rather than presenting conclusions directly to a client, which keeps it on the assistive side of unauthorized practice of law rules.
A clause library and template assembly system with privilege marking propagation typically takes eight to twelve weeks, depending on how many document types and practice areas the templates need to cover.
Insights
Share a few details about your project. A senior engineer reviews every request and replies with next steps, questions, and a rough budget range.