For law firms
A firm has to move faster without diluting review, and has to be able to show afterwards how a matter was run. This is the page I would send to a partner with ten minutes: which workflow to start with, and what a pilot measures.
Faster, without diluting review, and showable afterwards.
A Tuesday
A client has asked for a fee estimate on a matter the firm has run twenty times, and the answer will be assembled from memory. An associate has produced a good memo. The partner who has to sign it is reading the citations one by one at nine in the evening, because that is the only way to be sure.
A precedent that would have saved four hours exists in a matter from 2023 that nobody can find. And behind all of it, a question that was not asked five years ago: what happens if a reference in a filing turns out not to exist. In a Kısa Dalga interview of 17 June 2026, a lawyer described a petition that carried Yargıtay citations with fabricated case numbers and said the court wrote to the prosecutor and the bar the same day; that is the interviewee’s account, not a court finding.
The three questions partners ask
The first is whether the review standard survives. The design answer is that nothing leaves a workflow unsigned, and review depth follows impact rather than convenience.
The second is whether client confidentiality survives. That answer sits in the mandate. The sources an agent may read are fixed and logged. Material covered by professional secrecy enters no system whose terms have not been read for that purpose. The Union of Turkish Bar Associations published its advisory guide on AI use by lawyers on 28 August 2026. It keeps secrecy, personal data, the client’s interest, final legal reasoning and professional responsibility with the lawyer, and these workflows are built to leave all five there.
The third is whether it can be shown afterwards, to a client, an insurer or a bar. That is what the record is for.
Start with research and citation verification
Because the failure it prevents is specific, the check is easy to measure, and the cost of the failure is professional rather than commercial. Every citation checked against the primary text before a lawyer sees it, each check logged, nothing dropped quietly.
- 05Matter intake and engagement scopingLaw firm
The instruction becomes a file after conflicts screening and a written matter scope.
- 06Research and citation verificationStart hereLaw firm
Every citation is checked against the decision’s own text and the check is logged.
- 07Drafting from precedentLaw firm
The first draft is built from the firm’s own archive and the source of each clause is marked.
- 08Matter record and client reportingLaw firm
Stage, owner and signature stay in the file; the report is assembled from that record at month end.
The strip after each name shows which parts of the standard that workflow leans on hardest, in the order intake, mandate, review, record.
If the pain is at the front of the matter rather than the middle, matter intake and engagement scoping is the other common first choice. If there is a gain, it shows at the evaluation gate rather than in the first hour; the written scope records what will be measured. Drafting from precedent is not set up before the allowed-source list is signed by the partner. Matter record and client reporting is for firms thinking about moving from hourly fees to stage-based pricing: it builds the record that the pricing conversation rests on, and it does not by itself establish a pricing model. A second workflow is not opened until the first has passed its evaluation gate.
What an engagement looks like
A call of about an hour
The workflow, the team, the systems, the reviewer. No charge, no obligation.
A written scope
Stages, mandate, record format, the one measure, the dates and the price.
A supervised pilot
A baseline first, nothing unattended, and a pass or fail on a date fixed at the start.
What is measured during the pilot
The measure is yours. These are proposals, none of them a promised result, and the periods are written into each scope.
- Baseline: the current state. In the research workflow that is the time to produce a note and the number of citation errors found by hand in the last thirty notes. Both numbers are written down.
- Month one: the pilot runs supervised, on a single matter type. One measure: the share of citations that pass all four checks at the first attempt.
- Month two: the evaluation set is rerun and the result is read with the partner. If the verification gate missed a citation, the gate changes and its version number goes up.
- End date: three questions are answered. Did an unverified citation appear as verified, did anything leave without the named lawyer’s sign-off, and what happened to the time per note. The last is information rather than the measure, but it is where the pricing conversation starts.
At the end you hold the workflow definition, the allowed-source list, the mandate, the verification gate with its checks, the log format, the evaluation set and every verification log, exportable.
No numbers are promised here, and I do not publish client names or results. Turkish bar advertising rules restrict what may be published about clients and outcomes, and a published method is the honest substitute.
What this is not
Not a research database, not a drafting assistant, not a practice management system. It is the path the matter takes across whichever of those you already run. Workflow, copilot or CLM draws that line. LEXSAS is not a law firm and does not practise law.
Three short answers
The workflow runs in the firm’s own environment. The sources the agent may read are fixed in advance, and which folders of the archive are open is set in a document a partner signs. Whether text from one client’s file may be carried into another is assessed separately.
Verification is a gate, not a step. Every citation is checked against the decision’s own text and the check is logged; a citation that fails is flagged for the lawyer, not quietly dropped. Whether a citation given by one AI exists is never asked of a second AI.
No, and not changing it is the point. The Union of Turkish Bar Associations’ advisory guide of 28 August 2026 says that professional secrecy, personal data, the client’s interest, final legal reasoning and professional responsibility cannot be delegated to AI. What the workflow does is write those five down and make them showable afterwards.
Start with one workflow from the workflows page, or read the operating standard first. Get in touch