Become a client
Four ways to have the same case run.
A traditional firm, a firm that has added AI, a tool you run yourself, or a firm built around the chain that produces the case. What each one changes on the merits, on the risk, and on the invoice — in that order.
The choice
Where the four part ways.
The comparison is not about the technology used. It is about what shows in a case file: the grounds covered, the exhibits tied to the claims, who answers for what is signed, and what becomes of the time saved.
What produces the case
- Traditional firm
- Lawyer hours, capped by the budget.
- Firm with AI added
- The same hours, an assistant bolted on top.
- Tool used direct
- You, then a firm that starts again from the beginning.
- Amurabi
- A chain built to exhaust the case. The partner decides, advises and pleads.
Legal grounds covered
- Traditional firm
- Three or four, the ones the team knows best.
- Firm with AI added
- The same ones, found faster.
- Tool used direct
- The ones you know to look for.
- Amurabi
- All swept, then chosen. Two added grounds carried the decision in case 2023-0914.
Exhibits tied to claims
- Traditional firm
- The link between an exhibit and a claim is checked by reading.
- Firm with AI added
- The same reading, assisted.
- Tool used direct
- Out of scope: the tool does not know your exhibits.
- Amurabi
- Any claim without a direct exhibit is flagged before proceedings are issued.
Citations
- Traditional firm
- Checked by hand, as time allows.
- Firm with AI added
- An internal review instruction.
- Tool used direct
- Your responsibility.
- Amurabi
- A technical lock: submissions carrying an unverified citation cannot be filed.
Who answers for what is signed
- Traditional firm
- The signing lawyer, professional indemnity engaged.
- Firm with AI added
- The signing lawyer, professional indemnity engaged.
- Tool used direct
- Nobody: a tool gives no advice and carries no cover for it.
- Amurabi
- A named reviewer on every deliverable, professional indemnity engaged.
What becomes of the time saved
- Traditional firm
- There is no time saved: the hour is the unit of billing.
- Firm with AI added
- Kept by the firm. A third of them charge a premium for it.
- Tool used direct
- One more subscription, at your expense, upstream of the firm.
- Amurabi
- Shared: an invoice a quarter lower, or the difference refunded.
What you see along the way
- Traditional firm
- News when there is news. An invoice at the end.
- Firm with AI added
- News when there is news, sometimes a mention of AI.
- Tool used direct
- Your own search history.
- Amurabi
- A portal: progress, next deadline, budget consumed, assisted tasks, named reviewer.
Your data
- Traditional firm
- With the firm and its subcontractors.
- Firm with AI added
- With the tool’s vendor, under a contract you do not sign.
- Tool used direct
- Handed by you to a third party bound by no professional secrecy.
- Amurabi
- Walled off case by case, hosted in the European Union, never used to train a model.
| Criterion | Traditional firmThe billable hour | Firm with AI addedAI bolted on top | Tool used directYou run it yourself | AmurabiAI in the foundations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| What produces the case | Lawyer hours, capped by the budget. | The same hours, an assistant bolted on top. | You, then a firm that starts again from the beginning. | A chain built to exhaust the case. The partner decides, advises and pleads. |
| Legal grounds covered | Three or four, the ones the team knows best. | The same ones, found faster. | The ones you know to look for. | All swept, then chosen. Two added grounds carried the decision in case 2023-0914. |
| Exhibits tied to claims | The link between an exhibit and a claim is checked by reading. | The same reading, assisted. | Out of scope: the tool does not know your exhibits. | Any claim without a direct exhibit is flagged before proceedings are issued. |
| Citations | Checked by hand, as time allows. | An internal review instruction. | Your responsibility. | A technical lock: submissions carrying an unverified citation cannot be filed. |
| Who answers for what is signed | The signing lawyer, professional indemnity engaged. | The signing lawyer, professional indemnity engaged. | Nobody: a tool gives no advice and carries no cover for it. | A named reviewer on every deliverable, professional indemnity engaged. |
| What becomes of the time saved | There is no time saved: the hour is the unit of billing. | Kept by the firm. A third of them charge a premium for it. | One more subscription, at your expense, upstream of the firm. | Shared: an invoice a quarter lower, or the difference refunded. |
| What you see along the way | News when there is news. An invoice at the end. | News when there is news, sometimes a mention of AI. | Your own search history. | A portal: progress, next deadline, budget consumed, assisted tasks, named reviewer. |
| Your data | With the firm and its subcontractors. | With the tool’s vendor, under a contract you do not sign. | Handed by you to a third party bound by no professional secrecy. | Walled off case by case, hosted in the European Union, never used to train a model. |
The first three columns describe common market practice, not any particular firm or vendor. The proportions on the sixth row: Axiom, The State of AI in Legal Departments, 2026 — 79 % of firms use AI to work faster, 6 % pass the benefit on to their clients, 34 % charge a premium instead.
The objections
Four objections, taken head-on.
“AI invents case law.”
It does. That is why verification is a production lock and not an internal instruction: every authority is checked for existence, exact scope and subsequent history. Submissions carrying an unverified citation are refused by the server, not by good intentions.
“My exhibits will train a model.”
They will not, contractually and technically. The corpus is walled off case by case, aligned with the Chinese walls of the conflict check, hosted in the European Union. The audit trail — task, model, sources, reviewer, timestamp — is available to you and exportable at any hour.
“If the deliverable is wrong, who answers?”
A lawyer, named, whose signature engages professional indemnity. No deliverable leaves without a designated reviewer, no strategic decision is taken without the partner. Assistance does not move the person who answers for the work by an inch.
“Cheaper, therefore weaker.”
The reduction falls on the hours needed for the first pass — research, review, verification, drafting — not on what is produced. Partner time spent on strategy, negotiation and the hearing is unchanged, and the case reaches the hearing more complete, not lighter.
The order of magnitude
What your legal budget would become.
An estimate at constant scope, against the quote of a firm of equivalent standing. It is indicative until the fixed fee is agreed.
Estimator
Annual external legal budget
€2,400,000
Dominant nature of the work
Estimate at constant scope
- Difference in percentage
- −25%
- Average time saved per matter
- 4 to 7 months
- Guarantee
- the difference refunded
Indicative estimate. The fixed fee is set after reviewing the real scope and a market quote comparison.
The path
What happens next.
Step 01
Meeting
Forty-five minutes with the partner who would run the case. You set it out, they qualify it.
Step 02
Compared quote
A fixed fee, set against the quote of a firm of equivalent standing, line by line.
Step 03
Test case
One of your live cases run under the method. You judge on the deliverable, not on the promise.
Step 04
Portal opened
Progress, deadlines, budget consumed and the assistance log, available at any hour.
Book a meeting
Forty-five minutes with the partner who would run the case. Not a salesperson, not an account manager.
Paris · Londres · New York
Bruxelles · Dubaï · Singapour
Reply within 24 working hours.