AI automation · for Professional services (law, accounting, consulting)
AI automation for professional services firms.
You bill by the hour. Every hour your professionals spend on document drafting, intake, billing reconciliation, and knowledge search is money on the table. We build the layer that gives those hours back to billable work.
What\'s painful today
- 1.
Associates spend hours on first-draft documents that could be 80% complete from templates + AI
- 2.
New client intake takes a partner-level conversation that doesn't need to
- 3.
Billing reconciliation, time entry, and invoice prep eats junior time
- 4.
Knowledge management is "ask Sarah, she knows" instead of a searchable, AI-indexed firm brain
What we build for professional services (law, accounting, consulting)
AI document drafting agent
New matter type → agent generates first-draft document from your firm's precedent library + matter-specific context. Lawyer reviews + finalizes.
Impact: First-draft time: 80% reduction. Associate hours redirected to substantive review.
AI intake + conflict check
Prospective client inbound → agent runs intake, performs initial conflict check against your client database, schedules partner call only if it passes.
Impact: Partner time on intake: ~70% reduction. Conflict checks become consistent + auditable.
Billing + time entry agent
Pulls from calendar + documents + emails → drafts time entries for attorney review. Reconciles with billing system.
Impact: Time entry compliance increases. Bill leakage decreases. Hours freed for billable work.
AI firm-knowledge search
Searches across past matters, internal memos, precedent library → returns answers + citations to the source documents.
Impact: Research time on routine questions: ~60% reduction. Knowledge becomes a firm asset, not a "ask Sarah" anti-pattern.
Questions
How do you handle client confidentiality?+
All AI processing happens against models with no-training agreements (Claude via Anthropic's zero-retention API, or self-hosted alternatives if your conflict + ethics rules require). Client data never enters a public model.
Does this conflict with our state bar AI guidance?+
State bar guidance generally requires (a) lawyer review of AI output before client use, (b) competence in the tools, (c) disclosure where required. The systems we build are designed to be lawyer-reviewed pipelines, not autonomous decision-makers — exactly what current guidance expects.
What about regulated practice areas (immigration, criminal, tax)?+
Same architecture, same review gates. The agent drafts and surfaces information; the licensed professional decides. We design for this from day one.
Other industries we work with