Legal workflow automation, with human review.

Built with you on a fixed design; there is no separate licence to buy. Each workflow has a fixed shape: the same stages, the same mandate structure for the agent, the same record at the end. That shape is the product. What is built with you is the fit: your matter types, your playbook, your systems and the people who sign. The result runs in your environment and stays yours.

Every engagement starts with one workflow, scoped in a short call: the matter type, the team, the systems it touches and the reviewer who will sign. Pricing follows that scope rather than a per-seat licence list, and the fee is agreed for each engagement, in writing, before any work begins. The call ends in a written scope, and no work starts before it is written.

Workflows are designed to run inside your own environment, and you choose which country that environment is in. If the data staying in Türkiye is a requirement, it is written into the scope before the pilot and we check together that the chosen provider meets it, as a decision made for each engagement rather than a global promise. The sources an agent may read are fixed in advance and logged on every run. The design brief names the provider terms and the account settings that keep your content out of model training, and the pilot does not start until they are in place and someone on your side has read them. Retention, log access and deletion are settled in the same document, so every record kept means kept for the period agreed with you, in your systems. This site itself sets no cookies, runs no analytics and loads nothing from a third party.

The scoping call ends with a written scope, a named reviewer, one measure agreed in advance and a date for the pilot review. During the pilot the measure is read weekly and the critical error class is counted; at the end the evaluation set, drawn from your own files, is rerun, so a pilot set up that way ends in a pass or a fail rather than an impression. The decision is yours: continue, change or stop. The duration follows the scope, and the date is written down during the call. Whatever the outcome, the workflow definition, the playbook, the mandate register, the evaluation set and the run records are yours, in an exportable form. The exit terms are written into the pilot rather than negotiated at the end.

For an in-house team, intake and triage, because it is the one that produces the baseline the other three in-house workflows are later measured against. For a law firm, research and citation verification, because a wrong reference is a professional problem before it is a client problem, and because the check is easy to measure. If a different queue is the one actually hurting, we start there instead. The rule is one workflow, not the right workflow chosen in advance by me.

No. LEXSAS is not a law firm, gives no legal advice and provides no legal representation; nothing on this site creates an attorney-client relationship. Your lawyers draft, decide and sign; the workflow assembles the material, applies the controls you set and keeps the record. Behind it is Asım Serdar Yılmaz, founder, based in Istanbul: more than 20 years in legal and regulatory work, most of it in-house, including Amazon and eBay, after private practice at White & Case. He founded LEXSAS in Istanbul in 2026. Inside a legal team he co-developed a generative AI tool on AWS Bedrock and ran its pilots; the detail is on the about page. LEXSAS also advises on AI governance, regulated digital markets and legal operations, in English and Turkish.

I design the workflow with your team and run the first pilot with you. Your lawyers do the legal work throughout, and nothing leaves a workflow unsigned. When an agent gets something wrong, the named reviewer is accountable for the output: the mandate says what the agent could read, keep and do, and the record says who signed and when, both written before the run, not reconstructed after it. LEXSAS is accountable for the design of the workflow and for saying plainly where it should not be used. What runs after the pilot runs in your systems, with your team.

Your organisation is the data controller and makes the compliance call. Lawful basis, minimisation, retention and logging are decided with the workflow, in the design brief, not in a review afterwards. Any cross-border transfer question is answered in writing, with the mechanism named, before a pilot starts. What the workflow adds is that the call is documented and repeatable.

This is no longer a theoretical question in Türkiye. In a Kısa Dalga interview of 17 June 2026, a lawyer described a petition filed at a first-instance court that carried Yargıtay citations with fabricated case numbers, and said the court wrote to the bar and the prosecutor the same day; those are the interviewee’s statements, not a court finding. Verification is therefore a gate, not a step. Only the allowed sources are read: the firm’s archive, legislation and the case-law databases the firm subscribes to. Every citation is checked against its own primary text before it reaches a lawyer; for court citations that is the decision’s own text, Yargıtay, Danıştay and Constitutional Court decisions included. The check and its result go into the run record. A citation that cannot be matched to a source the agent was allowed to read is flagged for the reviewer and does not leave the workflow on its own. Responsibility stays with the lawyer who signs; the log is what lets that lawyer show the check was made.

No. A LEXSAS workflow runs across the tools a team already has: UYAP and e-Tebligat on the Turkish side, and contract lifecycle, document management, matter management and AI assistant tools in a corporate stack. LEXSAS resells none of them and claims no certified connector; it designs the workflow, the mandate and the record that run across them. A team with none of those tools can still run the workflow, with the file, the mandate and the record set up in a spreadsheet and the file system in its own environment, and can still export everything it produced.

The Union of Turkish Bar Associations published its advisory guide on AI use by lawyers on 28 August 2026: professional secrecy, personal data, the client’s interest, final legal reasoning and professional responsibility cannot be delegated to AI. Those are the controls a LEXSAS workflow writes down before a pilot starts, with one addition: a written mandate for an agent that acts, not only a prompt that answers. On the EU side, the AI Act’s Article 50 transparency duties apply from 2 August 2026. The Digital Omnibus, Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, in force since 27 July 2026, moves stand-alone high-risk duties to 2 December 2027 and product-embedded ones to 2 August 2028. The register a team keeps for the first is the register the second will ask for.