Operational technology built for how law firms actually work.
Twenty-three production deployments across marketing, CRM, accounting, HR, AI, and IT operations. Custom builds where the workflow is firm-specific. Configured platforms where commercial tools fit. Deep integration with the systems firms already run on: Aderant Expert, Thomson Reuters Elite 3E, iManage, FileSurf, Intapp, CourtAlert, USPTO PAIR, PACER/ECF, and the broader legal-tech ecosystem. One deployment, a native iOS docketing application built in under six months for a top-tier IP firm, earned a Financial Times award for best use of technology in legal.
Discovery first. Proof of concept before the build.
Every engagement on this page started the same way. We did not show up with a solution. We showed up with questions, and we did not propose anything until we understood the problem well enough to defend the approach to a skeptical partner.
-
01
Discovery
We sit with the people who actually do the work. Partners, paralegals, billing coordinators, IT operations, the conflicts team, the GC. We watch the workflow, read the systems, map the failure modes. We do not propose anything in this phase. The deliverable is a written problem statement we agree on before any architecture conversation begins. If the problem is not what the firm thought it was, we say so.
-
02
Proof of Concept
Before the firm commits to a full build, we deliver a working proof of concept against the firm's real data, real systems, and real constraints. Not a slide deck. Not a wireframe. Working code, integrated with whatever the firm runs (Aderant, Elite 3E, iManage, Intapp, the docketing system), demonstrating that we understood both the problem and the technical environment. The proof of concept is the contract: if it does not convince the partners and the IT team, the engagement does not proceed.
-
03
Production Build
Once the proof of concept is validated, we execute the production build against a scope and timeline both sides have signed off on. The architecture choices, integration patterns, and edge cases are settled by the time we start writing production code. The case studies on this page are what came out of that process.
Two ways we build for law firms.
The right approach depends on whether the workflow is specific to how the firm operates, or whether a well-configured commercial platform gets you most of the way there at lower cost. Most firms end up with a mix.
When commercial tools cannot model what the firm actually does.
IP prosecution, environmental matter management, partner economics, cross-office expertise mapping. The workflows that make the firm distinctive are usually the ones no vendor has bothered to build for. We build alongside the systems the firm already runs on, not in place of them.
- Typical build4 to 11 months
- Team size6 to 14 engineers
- StackPython, Node, .NET, Postgres, Neo4j, React, native iOS/Android
- Integrates withAderant, Elite 3E, iManage, NetDocuments, Intapp, ProLaw, USPTO, ECF
- OwnershipSource code transferred to firm
When the right tool exists and the value is in setting it up correctly.
Docketing, AP automation, helpdesk, candidate screening, content automation. Strong commercial platforms exist. The work is in fitting them to law firm taxonomies, integrations, ethical walls, and approval flows so they actually get used. Configuration is the difference between a tool that ships and a tool that adopts.
- Typical setup6 to 14 weeks
- PlatformsIntapp, CourtAlert, FirmPilot, ServiceNow, Greenhouse, Bill.com, Abnormal, Litera
- ConfigurationTaxonomy, ethical walls, integrations, training, governance
- Managed serviceOptional ongoing tuning and support
- Time to valueMeasured in weeks, not quarters
If something on this page sounds like a problem you actually have, we should talk.
We do not run discovery calls to qualify you. Send a short note describing the workflow that is not working, and we will tell you whether we have built it before, what it would take, and whether you should buy a platform instead.