Answers strictly from your documents with the passage cited, and a designed refusal when the answer is not there. Citation is enforced, not encouraged.
The number that moves
Time to answer · citation accuracy · rework
Industries · Professional Services
Professional & Legal Services
Law, accounting, audit and consulting firms have the cleanest AI economics in any sector — highly paid people doing large volumes of document work — and the strictest requirement that nothing be fabricated. Both are true at once, and the second one is why most attempts fail.
Your firm bills expertise and spends its week on retrieval, drafting and chasing documents.
What this sector loses today
The leak is rarely where the budget goes.
Four patterns that recur across this sector. If two of them are recognisably yours, there is a costed answer — and it is usually smaller than the programme you were being sold.
01
Senior people searching precedent, contracts and past matters for an answer.
The most expensive hours in the firm spent on retrieval rather than judgement.
02
First drafts assembled by hand from documents that already exist.
Realisation rates suffer on work clients will not pay full rate for.
03
Client onboarding and document collection chased over email for weeks.
Matters that cannot start, and a client experience that starts badly.
04
Knowledge leaves with the person who had it.
The same problem solved from scratch, repeatedly.
What changes
How the system behaves, before and after.
These are properties of the architecture, true from the day it goes live. We baseline the numbers underneath them before we build, so the delta is measured against your own starting point rather than against an industry average.
Applications
Where AI actually pays here.
Each of these is a defined build with a number against it, delivered by one of our five services. They can be scoped and bought individually.
Clause identification, obligation extraction and comparison against your standard positions, with confidence thresholds and a human reviewing everything that matters.
The number that moves
Review hours per matter · exception rate
First drafts from your precedent bank and house style, presented as a starting point for a professional rather than as an output.
The number that moves
Time to first draft · realisation rate
Collects, validates and chases the documents a matter needs, so onboarding stops living in an email thread.
The number that moves
Time to matter start · documents chased manually
Usage policy, confidentiality and privilege handling, client-consent position, and the oversight design your risk partner will want to see.
The number that moves
Time from proposal to partner sign-off
What we would build first
Order matters more than ambition.
Doing these in the wrong sequence is the most common reason AI work in this sector stalls. This is the order we would argue for, and the diagnostic is where we test it against your actual numbers.
01
Confidentiality and privilege first
Where the data sits, what leaves the firm, what the engagement letter has to say. In this sector that conversation precedes the build, not the launch.
02
Retrieval before generation
Finding the right passage with a citation is high value and low risk. Generation on top of a retrieval layer you already trust is a much shorter argument.
03
Drafting, with the professional in the loop
Only once the retrieval accuracy is measured and the review workflow is real. Never as the first thing.
Before your risk function signs
What they are going to ask.
In this sector the review is the schedule. We design for these from the first architecture session rather than retrofitting them when the security questionnaire comes back.
- Confidentiality and privilege designed in: matter isolation, and no client data used to train anything
- Deployment inside your own environment, or open-weight models you host, where the engagement requires it
- Citation enforced on every answer, and a designed refusal rather than a plausible guess
- A professional reviews anything that reaches a client — that gate is architectural, not procedural
- Full audit trail of source, model, version and reviewer for every output
Questions we get in this sector
The ones that decide it.
How do you handle client confidentiality and privilege?
By architecture, not by policy alone: matter-level isolation, deployment inside your environment or on open-weight models you host where the engagement requires it, no client data used to train anything, and a full audit trail. We produce the governance pack alongside the build so your risk partner is reviewing a document written for them.
What stops it from inventing a case or a clause?
Citation enforcement and designed refusal. The system answers from retrieved passages and shows them; where it cannot ground an answer, it says so instead of producing something plausible. That behaviour is part of the accuracy baseline we test before go-live, not a hope.
Will this replace junior lawyers or associates?
That is not how we would sell it and not what we have seen. It removes retrieval and first-pass assembly, which is the least valuable and least developmental part of the work. Someone still has to exercise judgement, and the firm still has to train people to do it.
Put a number on it
The retrieval cost, as arithmetic
Four lines. Most people can fill in the first and not the rest, and that gap is usually the whole problem. The blanks are deliberate — they are your numbers, not an industry average we invented. We complete it with you on the call.
Hours per week spent finding precedent____
Across how many fee earners____
Blended charge-out rate₹____
Annual value of that time= ____ × ____ × ₹____ × 46
This is unbilled or under-billed time in almost every firm. It is also the least developmental work your juniors do.
Free live demo
Give us fifty documents from one matter type. We will show you retrieval that cites the passage — and refuses when it cannot.
Inside an environment your risk partner would accept. The refusal behaviour is the demo, more than the answers are.
0148 hours
Retrieval over your own precedent bank
Fifty documents from one matter type. Ask it something genuinely hard and check the citation yourself.
0248 hours
A deliberate attempt to make it fabricate
We ask it for something that is not in the documents, and show it refusing rather than producing something plausible.
0348 hours
Clause extraction against your standard positions
Send a contract. We show the obligations pulled out and flagged against where you normally sit.
0448 hours
The confidentiality architecture
Matter isolation, where the data sits, what leaves the firm. Shown, not asserted — because your risk partner will ask.
What does the work
Stop reading about it. Watch it work.
Tell us the one thing that is costing you most, and we build it on your own material within 48 hours. Free, yours to keep, and the fastest way to find out whether any of this applies to you.