Blog
What a UK law firm wants to know before, during and after bringing an assistant into its work. Short, practical and written to be checked, like everything else here.
· 5 min read
Yes, if the tool respects the same access rules as your file. The test is whether access is granted matter by matter, whether seniority overrides it, and whether what a fee earner types stays inside the barrier.
Read the answer
· 5 min read
Yes, for the finding and listing part: AI can flag candidate passages and tell you which page they are on. The judgement about what comes out, and the act of redacting the file itself, stay with a human.
Read the answer
· 5 min read
Variation in wording is normal and harmless. Variation in substance is a warning sign. Judge an answer by the sources and pages it cites, not by how it is phrased.
Read the answer· 5 min read
Yes, for the groundwork: pulling the names, dates, figures and background from the file and drafting the free text boxes. The current version of the form, the statement of truth and the filing itself stay with the fee earner.
Read the answer
· 5 min read
Almost always no. The matter file holds material a client should not see unfiltered, and any answer a client reads is the firm's answer. Share reviewed output instead of handing over the tool.
Read the answer
· 5 min read
Sometimes, but not first. A connection removes copying and uploading, and it also widens what the tool can reach, so permissions become the thing keeping you safe. Most small firms learn more by starting matter by matter.
Read the answer
· 5 min read
Yes, for the mechanical parts: cross-checking entries against the file, spotting duplication and gaps, and pulling figures together. The judgement about what to dispute stays with a costs lawyer or fee earner.
Read the answer
· 5 min read
Yes, for the groundwork: digesting long letters, tracking what has been asked and answered, checking dates, and drafting plain English replies. What you say, and how you say it, stays with the fee earner.
Read the answer
· 5 min read
Treat it like any other breach: contain it, find out what data was involved, and work through your usual reporting decisions. The AI element changes the investigation, not the obligations.
Read the answer
· 5 min read
Treat it as information, not a failure. Work out whether the gap is in the papers, in the sources or in the question, then do that part of the work yourself and record what you found.
Read the answer
· 5 min read
Yes, for the reading and extraction layer: finding what is in a data room, pulling terms out of contracts, and flagging gaps. The judgement about what matters to the deal stays with the fee earner.
Read the answer
· 5 min read
Judge both on the same things: what they can see, whether answers cite the source, where data goes, and how they are paid for. Many firms end up using both, for different work.
Read the answerCreate an account, open a matter and put a real question to it. Every point it makes names where it came from.
Get started
