You already trust Microsoft 365 and Clio because the contracts, encryption, and compliance posture are settled. We've done the same work for AI — built on hardware we own in Canada, in a form that fits the diligence framework your firm already uses. You get the productivity. We carry the diligence load.
With Microsoft 365 and Clio, the privacy work is settled. Encryption, contracts, residency, vendor accountability — your firm has a framework, and those vendors fit it. LLMs break the framework. Different threat model, different terms, different vendor. Evaluating that is itself a major piece of work, and most managing partners don't have time to do it. So associates anonymize and paste, partners pretend it isn't happening, or the firm just falls behind. — What we keep hearing on intro calls
USD $1,200/seat with a 20-seat minimum and a 12-month commitment. Built for AmLaw 100. The diligence is done — but the price is for firms 10x your size.
ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini — every prompt and every uploaded document hits US infrastructure. Their TOS doesn't fit your existing privacy framework, so adopting them officially means doing all the diligence work yourself.
Lindy and Artisan are sales tools wearing different hats. They don't speak Clio, don't understand limitation periods, can't draft a Statement of Claim — and they're hosted in the US.
And the firms across the street that figured this out start producing work product 4× faster. That gap compounds quarterly.
When a managing partner evaluates a new vendor, they're checking it against a framework: signed agreement, encryption, residency, accountability, audit trail. We've shaped the entire offering to slot into that framework — same questions, same answers, same shape.
You don't have to invent a new evaluation framework for AI. The deliverables that satisfy your existing privacy posture for your cloud vendors satisfy ours, with one structural upgrade: instead of "data resides in Canadian regions of US-controlled clouds," the data lives on hardware we own outright in a Toronto colocation facility.
One vendor. One contract. One audit log. One Canadian phone number when you have a question.
In the same shape as your Microsoft 365 and Clio agreements. We share it before the pilot signs — your privacy lawyer can read it in 15 minutes.
One page. Names every system, every data flow, every storage location. Reviewable in 20 minutes by a non-technical compliance officer or your insurer.
Every prompt, every draft, every retrieval — logged against the matter and reviewable. No black box. Same audit posture you already expect from your other vendors.
No third-party LLM API calls, no model providers in the data path, no "subprocessor list" with twelve names. One Canadian company on the contract.
Built around the FLSC Model Code on technological competence and the provincial bar guidance. We bring the documentation; your privacy lawyer confirms the fit.
The bot lives inside Clio, Microsoft 365, and OneDrive — the systems your firm already pays for. No new platform to log into, no document migration, no IT project. Same way one of your paralegals would work, except it's available at 11 p.m. on a Tuesday and it remembers every file your firm has ever opened.
Wills, deeds, separation agreements, retainer letters, demand letters, statements of adjustments — drafted from your matter file in the voice of the lawyer who'll sign it. Learned from your firm's actual prior work product. You edit; it learns.
Ingests opposing counsel's productions, OCRs scanned material, identifies the pages that actually matter, flags inconsistencies with prior testimony in the file, drafts the memo to lead counsel.
Reads matters, contacts, calendars, and email. Drafts time entries. Files emails to the right matter folder. Watches limitation periods. Wired into the systems your firm already pays for, not a new platform to log into.
Every retainer, every motion, every settlement letter, every will your firm has filed becomes searchable institutional memory. New associate asks "have we done this kind of file before?" — they get an answer in seconds, not days.
Most legal AI is the same product for every firm. After 90 days at your firm, ours isn't.
When a lawyer rewrites a paragraph, the bot logs the diff. When a draft gets accepted unchanged, that's signal too. Every interaction is training data.
Every Friday, we run analysis on the week's outputs. What got rejected, why, and what pattern is emerging. Bad memory gets pruned. Good patterns get reinforced.
Every three months, we retrain the bot on your firm's accumulated work product. After a year, it writes more like your firm than a new associate would after 18 months.
Every Monday morning, the managing partner gets a one-page report: what the bot got right, what got edited, what it learned. No black box. No "trust us."
Most legal AI tools sell themselves as everything-machines. We'd rather tell you exactly what the bot does today and exactly what's on the roadmap — so you can make a real decision instead of a hopeful one.
The v1 product is built around the work that takes the most paralegal hours and the least judgment to automate well:
For now, the bot doesn't try to give you legal opinions or do caselaw research. Your lawyers do that the way they do today. We're working on changing that:
There's the giant tier built for AmLaw 100. There's the consumer tier hosted in the US. There's nothing in between for Canadian firms with 3–50 lawyers. We built the in-between.
It's the right question to ask. The answer is structural — and it's why a 17-year-old Canadian managed-hosting company is better positioned to serve your firm than a $15-billion AI startup.
The big AI agent companies have raised billions of dollars at multi-billion-dollar valuations. They cannot profitably serve a 12-lawyer firm — the math forces them upmarket. We can. We've been profitable for 17 years.
We own the colo. We own the racks. Adding GPU capacity is incremental cost on a stack we already operate. The privacy story isn't marketing — it's our actual architecture.
We've been keeping Canadian businesses' production systems alive since 2009. When something breaks at 11 p.m., you call the same on-call team that's kept your hosting up — not an offshore queue.
We're not asking you to commit to anything today. We're asking for 90 days with one workflow. If it isn't saving your paralegals 10+ hours a week by day 90, we shut it off.