Legal practices run on client trust, confidentiality and billable hours. Technology should protect all three, not consume them. We build systems that secure client matter data, surface conflict risks before they become issues, and give time back to fee earners who should be advising clients rather than chasing documents.
Technology in legal is judged by two things: whether it protects client confidentiality and whether it makes fee earners more productive. The work below spans the full legal sector, because each practice type manages risk differently.
M&A due diligence, contract management, transaction tracking and deal rooms with controlled access.
Case management, discovery workflow, court date tracking and evidence handling with chain of custody.
Transaction tracking, title and conveyancing, lease management and property portfolio oversight.
Estate and trust administration, sensitive matter handling, and secure client communication.
Patent and trademark portfolio management, prosecution timeline tracking, and renewal monitoring.
Contract lifecycle management, outside counsel management, and enterprise risk oversight.
Where the return actually comes from: Legal technology returns land in three places. Revenue realisation: time captured at the point of work rather than reconstructed from memory, which typically recovers significant billable hours. Risk reduction: conflicts identified before engagement, ethical walls enforced by the system, and confidentiality protected by design rather than by policy alone. And client experience: portals and secure communication that reduce the friction of working with counsel, which shows up in retention and referrals.
Your practice management system holds the financial record of the firm. It was never designed to run your risk management, your client experience or your knowledge management. These are the categories that sit around it.
Time, billing, trust accounting and financial reporting. This system is the system of record for the firm's financials and client money obligations, and it stays where it is. We integrate with it rather than replace it.
Client and matter creation, conflict checking, engagement letters, matter budgets and matter lifecycle tracking. This is where most firms still run on spreadsheets and shared inboxes.
Conflict checking, confidentiality and ethical wall enforcement, records retention, client due diligence and the evidence trail a regulator or client audit will ask for.
All client and matter documents with version control, classification and retention applied automatically. Precedent and template libraries that actually get used.
These are the four that come up in almost every first conversation, paired with the outcome leadership is really asking for.
Matter documents are accessible to people who should not see them because access is managed manually. Ethical walls rely on memory and goodwill.
The outcome leaders ask forEvery matter document accessible only to the people who genuinely need it, with ethical walls enforced by the system and audit evidence available on demand.Fee earners reconstruct time from memory, emails and calendars on a Friday afternoon. Significant billable time is lost, and the entries that are made are approximations.
The outcome leaders ask forTime captured at the point of work, with activity logged automatically where possible, so billing is accurate and fee earners spend the week practicing law.Matter status, budget burn and billing summaries are compiled from different systems for each client report. It consumes time and produces a picture that is always slightly out of date.
The outcome leaders ask forClient reports generated from live matter data, with the level of detail each client expects, produced in minutes rather than hours.Matter history, precedent decisions and client relationships live in the memory of the fee earners who handled them. When they leave, the knowledge goes with them.
The outcome leaders ask forA knowledge base that captures decisions, templates and matter history as a by-product of working, so the firm retains what it knows even when people move on.If you recognize three of these four, the constraint is almost never the practice management system. It is the absence of an operational layer around it — which is a considerably smaller and cheaper problem to solve than replacing the system the firm runs on. The constraint is almost never the practice management system
Every legal engagement starts by agreeing which of these you can baseline today.
Time captured at the point of work rather than reconstructed at week end
Time from request to conflict clearance, from days to minutes
Matter reporting generated from live data rather than assembled by hand
Time to find any matter document, from searching to known location
Secure communication and document exchange that clients actually use
Access, retention and ethical wall evidence produced as work happens
How to read these: How to read these: the figures above are typical ranges we plan and measure against, not guarantees. In your first engagement we agree the baseline, the target and the measurement method in writing, then report against them.
Most engagements start with one of these and grow into the others. None of them require you to change your practice management system.
The operational layer around matter creation and management, with confidentiality and ethical walls designed in from day one.
All matter documents in one governed location with version control, retention and the search capability that makes precedent findable.
Secure client portals, automated reporting and a collaboration environment that works for both counsel and client.
The platform gives you matter and relationship management, workflow and reporting. The value is in fitting it to how your firm actually works — which differs by practice group more than most vendors admit.
Environment design, data migration, configuration, testing and go-live for the Dynamics 365 applications your operation actually needs — to a fixed price and a fixed date. For firms that usually means a practice-group-by-practice-group rollout, because litigation and corporate will not accept the same intake process and should not be asked to.
We do not sell the whole suite by default. These are the applications that consistently carry weight in legal practices, and what each one is genuinely good at here.
Client and matter creation, conflict checking and intake workflow. The case management model fits legal matter workflows naturally, with queues, ownership and SLAs that a shared inbox has never had.
Pipeline and relationship management for client acquisition and cross-selling. Relationship intelligence surfaces who knows whom, which is how legal business development actually works.
Matter budgets against actual time, realisation tracking and profitability by matter and client. For firms that need to know what matters actually cost to deliver.
Where legal's specifics live. Engagement letter approval workflows, document review checklists, conflict clearance forms and risk assessment templates — built as Power Apps and Power Automate flows.
A note on AI in legal: we are deliberately cautious. We will help you apply Copilot to document summarisation, research assistance and first-draft correspondence, with the confidentiality and privacy obligations of legal work designed in. We will not help you put a model between a lawyer and a legal opinion.
Legal practices have their own rhythm: the transaction cycle, the court calendar, the reporting cadence. Our first phase maps those before we propose any change.
We sit with fee earners, paralegals and support staff and watch the actual workflow, including every workaround and exception.
We agree the outcomes with practice leadership, risk and compliance together, in one room.
We map the matter lifecycle and show you a working prototype before we build, with your compliance officer in the review.
We build, integrate with the practice management system, migrate, validate and train — sequenced by practice area, to a fixed price.
We stay on after go-live, measure against the baseline we agreed, and tune what the data tells us is not working.
Your risk and compliance team are in the design reviews from week one, not shown the result at the end. In our experience that single sequencing decision is what separates a legal project that goes live from one that stalls in risk review.
We are a Microsoft consultancy with legal experience, not a legal software vendor with a Microsoft badge. The difference shows up in what we recommend you buy.
Ethical walls, information barriers and client confidentiality are designed in from the first architecture session, not retrofitted after a security review sends the project back.
Every workflow we design is reviewed by the people who will use it during a working day. If it adds clicks to a legal task, we have not finished designing it.
We have no incentive to replace your practice management system and we will tell you when the right answer is a change inside it rather than a new application beside it.
Applications, security, identity, document management and the managed service afterwards come from one team with one point of accountability.
Two illustrative engagements showing the shape of the work and how we frame the result.
A mid-sized firm's conflict checking process was manual, involving multiple people and a shared spreadsheet. New client enquiries took days to clear, and the firm had turned away work because the delay damaged client confidence.
Client reporting was a manual exercise at the end of each matter. Clients wanted interim reporting on budget burn and matter progress, but producing it was too time-consuming to do regularly.
Short, practical pieces on the decisions legal practice leaders are being asked to make.
A plain-English walk through information barriers, permissions and audit evidence for ethical walls that actually hold.
Read moreWhy Friday afternoon reconstruction is the most expensive habit in legal, and how to break it without annoying fee earners.
Read moreDrafting, summarisation and research assistance are ready today. Anything touching legal judgment is not. Here is where we draw the line.
Read moreTell us one process that is currently consuming too much fee earner time — conflict checking, client reporting, matter intake, document management. We will build a working demo of that specific workflow with your firm's terminology in it, and walk your risk and practice leadership through it.
Describe the situation in your own words.
