Find the recurring work worth improving
Proposal preparation, engagement reporting, invoice follow-up and searching past work can consume time around client delivery. Each is a different task with different inputs and risks. A first implementation should choose one, name the person who owns it and define the output they need.
A proposal may depend on approved service descriptions and reusable examples. An engagement report needs current milestones, decisions and open issues. Knowledge retrieval needs a reliable set of documents and clear permission to access them. Before adding AI, check whether better document organisation or an existing practice-management feature would solve the problem.
Find firm knowledge with references
A retrieval workflow can prepare an answer from selected firm documents and point to the passages used. The reviewer should check that the source applies to the current matter, remains current and is authorised for this use. A relevant-looking precedent can still have different assumptions or conditions.
For example, a question about an earlier engagement might return its stated scope, recorded decisions and unresolved items. The output should separate those records from any interpretation and show when there is insufficient information. It should not present an old client's advice as a current professional conclusion.
- Confirm which document version is authoritative.
- Keep client and matter access boundaries in retrieval and the review interface.
- Exclude records the workflow does not need.
- Test questions with no supported answer as well as straightforward lookups.
Four candidate workflows
| Task | Inputs to assess | Output for review |
|---|---|---|
| Proposal preparation | Prospect brief, approved service information and reusable past work. | A draft scope with open questions and supporting references. |
| Engagement update | Milestones, delivery records and current decisions. | A status report that distinguishes completed and outstanding work. |
| Invoice follow-up | Current ledger status and authorised correspondence. | A reminder draft for the finance or relationship owner. |
| Account review | Recorded commitments, service issues and upcoming review dates. | An evidence summary and proposed questions for the relationship partner. |
These are candidate scopes, not a package that automatically goes live together. The first choice depends on available inputs, review capacity and the value of improving that task. See sales workflows, finance operations and client services for worked examples.
Client confidentiality
Confidentiality requirements shape the design before documents are connected. Agree permitted sources, client separation, reviewer roles, model providers, storage and retention. Consider copies in search indexes and logs as well as the original files. A private application server alone does not establish where all data processing takes place.
If an engagement restricts processing to a particular environment or excludes a provider, raise that at the start. We assess whether the proposed architecture can meet the requirement. Where feasibility or permission is unresolved, use a redacted example for evaluation and keep the restricted material out of the workflow.
The security page sets out the questions to resolve. The vendor checklist helps the firm request evidence for the actual implementation rather than relying on a general statement of capability.
How the engagement runs
Start with a recent task and the reviewer who knows what a good result looks like. We map the source material, agree acceptance criteria and build a bounded workflow. Evaluation should include stale precedents, missing documents, conflicting versions and an unauthorised access attempt.
Measure preparation and review effort separately, together with factual corrections and unresolved questions. Keep professional judgment with the qualified team. A pilot's time saving does not establish the accuracy of advice or justify reducing the review required by the firm.
Questions managing partners ask
Can the workflow produce professional advice?
The scope described here is preparation and internal support. The firm remains responsible for qualified judgment, applicable obligations and approval of material used with clients.
What if important context exists only in conversations?
The workflow cannot rely on information it has not received. The reviewer should add the missing context and decide what can appropriately be recorded for future use.
Can this run inside our own environment?
We assess the full requirement, including models, retrieval, logging and support. The supported design must be confirmed before restricted records are used.
Who reviews outputs?
The firm names reviewers by task and client. Sending, publishing or updating another system is included only where the authority and controls are explicitly agreed and tested.
Launch your autopilotTell us which preparation task takes time and what confidentiality requirements apply.