Commercial law firms · legal operations · knowledge teams

AI consultancy for law firms.

Improve document-heavy workflows while keeping legal judgement and professional responsibility with your lawyers.

Binarify helps firms connect controlled AI workflows to the intake, practice-management, document-management and research systems they already use. We begin with one matter stage, its evidence, its baseline and its approval standard.

30-minute discovery call · fixed scope before implementation

Configure before building

Start with the legal technology you already license.

Clio Grow intake forms already collect prospective-client data, and Clio conflict checks already search firm data and produce reviewed reports. Ask iManage can search and analyse governed matter documents with source evidence.

The first assessment checks whether configuration, metadata, permissions and staff adoption solve the bottleneck. A custom layer becomes relevant when a valuable cross-system handoff or review queue remains.

The implementation should keep stable client and matter identifiers, original documents, permissions and reviewer decisions in the firm’s approved systems. A disconnected AI workspace can weaken both the workflow and its evidence trail.

Law-firm AI use cases

Four workflows with sources, ownership and lawyer review.

These are patterns to assess against the firm’s practice areas, systems, professional rules, court requirements, client terms and information barriers. They are not legal advice or completed Binarify client results.

01

Intake · risk · practice teams

Client and matter intake

The friction: Enquiries arrive through several channels with incomplete party details, unstructured facts and documents. Staff rekey information before the firm can review conflicts, fit and next steps.

The approach: Capture the enquiry in the practice platform, normalise names, identify missing facts and prepare conflict-search terms and a review packet. Authorised staff decide conflicts, matter acceptance and engagement.

MeasureTime to review-ready intake · rekeying time · incomplete searches · approved matters opened correctly

Read the intake guide →
02

Transactional · disputes · investigations

Source-linked document review

The friction: Teams repeatedly classify files, extract clauses and dates, compare positions and build chronologies across large matter sets under deadline pressure.

The approach: Run an approved question list against a defined document population, link every proposed answer to its source passage and send uncertainty or conflict to a lawyer. Counsel decides legal significance and final use.

MeasureReview minutes per document · unsupported answers · lawyer correction rate · material omission rate

Read the document-review guide →
03

Knowledge · practice groups · lawyers

Firm knowledge and precedent retrieval

The friction: Useful prior work is difficult to find because matter metadata, permissions, document quality and drafting conventions vary across the repository.

The approach: Improve metadata and permission boundaries first, then retrieve approved precedents and experience with citations to governed sources. Lawyers confirm currency, jurisdiction, client restrictions and suitability.

MeasureSuccessful retrieval · time to verified precedent · stale or restricted results · reuse corrections

04

Partners · matter teams · operations

Matter status and client reporting

The friction: Deadlines, work status, scope changes, client dependencies, budgets and next actions sit across practice management, documents, email and finance systems.

The approach: Reconcile stable matter identifiers and prepare evidence-linked status briefs from approved systems. Keep fee calculations deterministic and route legal, commercial and client-sensitive judgements to the matter owner.

MeasureUnowned actions · stale status · budget exceptions · lawyer corrections · client-report turnaround

Professional responsibility

Keep sources and lawyer decisions visible.

The UK SRA warning notice on misuse of AI states that AI does not diminish or transfer professional responsibility. The US ABA Formal Opinion 512 addresses competence, confidentiality, communication, supervision, candour and fees.

Those sources apply in their own regulatory contexts. Each firm must define the rules, client instructions and court requirements that apply to a workflow. The system then turns those decisions into approved tools, matter-data boundaries, evidence links, review steps, logs and incident escalation.

How Binarify handles systems and data →

Business case

Measure the complete matter stage.

A faster summary has limited value if document setup, lawyer verification, corrections or downstream rework increase. The diagnostic follows the full workflow and records both time and professional-quality measures.

Use the law-firm AI ROI guide to distinguish released capacity from realised margin, lower write-offs, avoided external cost or additional profitable work.

What the diagnostic includes →

Practical questions

Before commissioning AI for a law firm.

Which law firms is this service designed for?

The service is designed for commercial law firms with a repeated workflow, an accountable partner or operations owner, usable system access and enough volume to measure. We define the practice area, matter stage, jurisdictions, client restrictions and professional review before proposing a scope.

Do we need a custom AI system?

Often no. We first inspect the intake, practice-management, document-management, research, Microsoft 365 and legal-AI capabilities the firm already licenses. Configuration is preferable when it solves the problem. Integration or custom development is considered only for a valuable remaining gap.

Can AI clear conflicts or accept a new matter?

Our proposed starting scope prepares consistent party data, search terms, matching evidence and a reviewer packet. The firm’s authorised people decide whether a conflict exists, whether it can be addressed, whether the matter fits the firm and whether an engagement begins.

Can AI give legal advice or submit work to a court?

No autonomous legal advice, representation, filing or court submission is included in the starting scope. AI may help organise evidence, retrieve approved sources and prepare drafts. A qualified lawyer reviews the underlying sources, applies professional judgement and approves any client or court work.

How do you protect confidentiality and privilege?

The design covers permitted tools and matter data, supplier terms, training use, data location, access, ethical walls, client instructions, retention, logging and incident response. Architecture and contracts support the firm’s controls, but they do not automatically determine whether confidentiality or privilege is preserved in a particular jurisdiction or matter.

Can you integrate with Clio, iManage, NetDocuments or legal research products?

We assess the exact product, edition, permissions, API coverage, licensing and data-location requirements. We preserve the matter system and document-management system as authoritative records where appropriate, and do not promise identical integrations across vendors.

How should a firm measure legal AI?

Baseline the complete matter stage: preparation, retrieval, processing, lawyer review, correction, elapsed time and downstream rework. Released hours become a financial return only through a credible action such as additional profitable work, lower write-offs, avoided external cost or improved fixed-fee margin.

How much does an engagement cost?

The AI Impact Diagnostic starts at $2,500 USD and normally takes one to two weeks. Implementation sprints start at $15,000 USD. The diagnostic fee is credited against the sprint if you proceed.

Bring one repeated matter stage and its approval standard.

Tell us the annual volume, current systems, preparation time, lawyer review time and common exceptions. No client documents or confidential matter details are needed for the first call.