Use case · Law firms
In a law firm the file is the product. Pleadings, judgments and correspondence spanning twenty years sit in an archive only the person who built it knows - and the question is rarely where something is, but what was decided in comparable cases.
Usually the process accepted fastest
What is different here
“Have we had a case with this constellation before?” is the real question. A full-text search does not answer it, because the same constellation is named differently in every pleading.
Whoever does not work on a matter must not see the file. A search that answers across matters would be a professional-conduct problem - permissions have to be adopted exactly, not approximately.
An incoming item can trigger a deadline. Anything that disappears into the filing before someone has seen it is therefore not merely unfindable but a liability risk.
If yours is not listed, that is not an exclusion. Where no interface exists, we build one - that is the most demanding part and it is our trade.
In a law firm the permission boundary is part of professional conduct. A search that does not reproduce it exactly is not impractical, it is impermissible.
The difference
A person does itThe system does it
How it runs today
How it would run with us
What it gets you
Where it does not fit
If the records contradict each other, the search makes that visible - it cannot resolve it. Sometimes that is the actual finding.
In a law firm the permission boundary is part of professional conduct. A search that does not reproduce it exactly is not impractical, it is impermissible. Whether it pays for you depends on your volume - the audit establishes that.
Yes. The ones listed are those we most often meet in law firms - a list, not a precondition. Where no interface exists, we build one.
Read access to the archives that are to be searched - network drive, mail archive, DMS. A permissions rule: who may see which records. The system adopts it, it does not work around it. A dozen typical everyday questions as touchstones. Nothing more is needed to start.
On 50 prepared questions, at least 85 % come back with an answer and a correct source. Every answer names the document it came from - no source, no answer. Nobody sees records through the search that they could not open directly.
3 to 5 weeks, depending on the state of the filing.
Pure enquiry runs independently, because it changes nothing. Anything that creates or sends a document is a different process.
If the records contradict each other, the search makes that visible - it cannot resolve it. Sometimes that is the actual finding.
This page shows the fit in law firms. The process itself is sector-independent - what matters is whether it repeats.
Document search in generalYou tell us where your time goes. We put it in writing: what is worth automating, and roughly what that costs.
