Let's talk

Client services & engineering

Praxen Development / For law firms

Better systems around
the legal work.

Your team should not have to reconstruct every inquiry, chase every missing attachment or repeatedly search for the same procedure. I build focused systems around that work, with professional review kept in the process.

Discuss your firm's workflow

Start before the first meeting

A useful intake process
ends in a clear handoff.

A form alone does not make an inquiry ready for review. Your team still needs the relevant facts, missing information, source material and a clear owner for the next step.

An engagement can connect those stages around your firm's own process. Begin with one intake path and test how the system handles incomplete, conflicting and out-of-scope submissions.

See the intake scope
Illustrative intake workflowFrom first inquiry
to a useful next step.

  1. Capture the inquiry

    Approved forms, messages and call notes.

    Organized inputs

  2. Prepare the review

    Key facts, source references and missing information.

    A review-ready brief

  3. Let the team decide

    Conflict checks, fit and the next conversation.

    An accountable handoff

Professional review stays in the process.

Example engagement scopes

What the system prepares.
What your team decides.

These are starting points for a scoped build. Your practice area, existing software and review requirements determine the final design.

01

Client intake & follow-up

An inquiry arrives. The chase begins.

Possible build

Bring approved forms, emails and call notes into a structured review queue. Identify missing information and prepare the next step for your team.

Deliverable

An intake brief, a missing-information list and a clear review handoff.

Your firm's review

Your firm handles conflict checks, qualification, advice and engagement decisions. Drafted communications wait for approval.

Evaluate it against

Time to a review-ready inquiry, incomplete submissions and follow-ups needing correction.

02

Document preparation & review support

The documents arrived. The facts are still scattered.

Possible build

Extract agreed fields, organize a document set and prepare a summary with references to the source material. Surface gaps and conflicting information for review.

Deliverable

A source-linked document index, extracted fields and a review checklist.

Your firm's review

A professional checks the source material and approves the result. Extracted dates are not a substitute for verified deadline calculation.

Evaluate it against

Preparation time, extraction errors, missing source references and reviewer corrections.

03

Internal knowledge & firm procedures

Someone knows the answer. Finding it takes work.

Possible build

Make approved procedures, templates and internal guidance easier to retrieve. Connect answers to their sources and define a fallback when the material does not support an answer.

Deliverable

A searchable internal reference with source links and defined access boundaries.

Your firm's review

The firm decides what belongs in the collection, who can access it and who approves changes. Professional judgment stays with the team.

Evaluate it against

Time to the right reference, unsupported answers and whether access rules hold.

Sensitive material changes the design

Decide the boundaries
before connecting the data.

A workflow review should answer the operational questions that a generic AI demo leaves open.

Processing and retention
Which information goes to which system, under what provider terms, and for how long?
Access and separation
Who can retrieve each source or matter, and how will those restrictions be tested?
Review and approval
Which outputs need checking, who approves them, and which actions require a person?
Failure and recovery
What happens when an input is missing, a source conflicts or an integration stops responding?

The ABA's guidance on generative AI addresses competence, confidentiality and other professional obligations. These inform the questions to resolve with your firm; they are not a product certification. Read Formal Opinion 512.

The engagement

Start narrow.
Make the result inspectable.

You work directly with Chris Dukes. Scope, fees, data access, acceptance criteria and support are agreed before work begins.

Before you commission a build

Practical questions.

A useful first conversation should make the fit, boundaries and next step clearer.

Do we need to replace our practice-management software?

Start with the tools you already use. The first review checks existing features, API access, permissions and integration costs. A custom system makes sense when there is a specific gap worth closing.

Can we start without sharing client files?

Yes. Begin with a description of the workflow and nonconfidential examples. Before any client material enters a system, agree on access, processing location, retention, provider terms and the firm’s required review process.

Will the system give advice or accept matters automatically?

The proposed workflows prepare information for your team. Conflict checks, legal advice, matter acceptance and client commitments remain with the firm. Any consequential action needs an explicitly agreed approval step.

How do we know whether a pilot is worth keeping?

Measure the current process first. Then compare representative examples using agreed criteria such as preparation time, missing information, source accuracy, reviewer corrections and operating cost. Use the result to decide whether to expand, revise or stop.

What happens after the build?

Define the operating owner, documentation, training, maintenance scope and response expectations in the engagement. Recurring provider costs and a manual fallback should be visible before the system becomes part of daily work.

Make the first message simple

Tell me where
the work gets stuck.

Your practice area, the task, the tools and the handoff that takes too much effort. Please leave client records out of the initial message.

Discuss a workflow