Legal
Legal work rarely fits into a single contract-review task. Matters move through intake, research and analysis, document review, chronology building, evidence and source handling, due diligence, drafting, correspondence, and internal knowledge reuse. Assist is designed to reduce the repetitive handling around that lifecycle while keeping legal judgement and client responsibility with the professional.
Where Assist fits in the workflow
Each matter can be given an isolated workspace containing authorised client documents, correspondence, legislation, authorities, evidence, templates, precedents, and versioned firm knowledge. Skills can then prepare source-linked research notes, document comparisons, chronologies, due-diligence findings, disclosure or review sets, draft sections, and issue lists for a lawyer to assess.
This is materially different from a generic chatbot or a local LLM with access to a folder. The workflow controls which sources and knowledge versions may be used, separates one matter from another, records how an output was produced, and routes defined steps to named reviewers. Approved datasets and domain adapters can extend the firm's capabilities without exposing the proprietary mechanism behind them.
Human authority and operating boundaries
Research notes, extracted facts, chronologies, classifications, and draft text remain proposed work until a lawyer reviews them. Assist does not provide autonomous legal opinions, decide strategy, determine privilege, assess admissibility, or replace professional duties. The reviewing professional decides what becomes firm work product and which source should carry weight.
A first bounded pilot
A first pilot does not need the firm's entire knowledge base. It can begin with one matter type, one client workspace, one defined body of authorities or internal procedure, and a limited document set. Assist can review extraction before use, prepare a source-linked chronology or issue list, compare documents, and produce a draft research or due-diligence note for a named lawyer to accept, correct, reject, or replace.
Success can be measured against the firm's existing method: time to first reviewable work product, sources correctly surfaced, omissions or unsupported propositions identified by the reviewer, corrections required, isolation between matters, and completeness of the approval record. The lawyer remains responsible for relevance, privilege, strategy, legal interpretation and final work product.
What is available for a pilot
Matter workspaces, reviewed document extraction, source-linked knowledge, proposed skill chains, stage approvals, reusable templates and traceable outputs are working parts of the platform. A pilot can therefore focus on one bounded, high-volume workflow rather than a speculative firm-wide transformation. Records can connect an output to its sources, knowledge version, workflow step and reviewer; they support governance and reconstruction but do not themselves guarantee accuracy, privilege, admissibility or a particular outcome.
Some of the architecture underlying this capability set is documented in filings still in progress. This page describes what the platform is designed to do, at a level appropriate for planning a pilot, not an implementation specification.
Bring one matter workflow
If your firm can identify one recurring matter workflow, a controlled source set and the lawyer who must approve the result, we can assess its fit for a bounded pilot without requiring a firm-wide rollout. Discuss the workflow and its success criteria →
Platform features and interface are subject to continuous improvement. Descriptions in this guide may not reflect the exact layout or wording of the latest released version.