We build Agents. You build the Future.
● Business offer — Legal sectorThe AI agent for law firms: save time without betraying secrecy
Case-law research, drafting documents, summarising exhibits, client reception: your AI agent absorbs the repetitive work. Data hosted in France; the AI model is called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option. With that option, professional secrecy never leaves it. The lawyer keeps the decision.
Updated on
Deployed in a few weeks
Legal assistant · hosted in France
Fictional simulation — not a client result
Abrupt termination of an established commercial relationship: what notice period for a 9-year relationship, and which recent rulings apply?
Legal basis: art. L.442-1, II of the Commercial Code (formerly L.442-6, I, 5°). The notice period is assessed against the length of the relationship (statutory criterion) and the state of economic dependence (case-law criterion); a notice period of 18 months is deemed sufficient by law.
For roughly 9 years: a case-by-case estimate in the order of 10 to 14 months — there is no statutory scale, and it must be adjusted for dependence and sector.
⛓ Sourced · 3 rulings · your files + case-law database
For roughly 9 years: a case-by-case estimate in the order of 10 to 14 months — there is no statutory scale, and it must be adjusted for dependence and sector.
⛓ Sourced · 3 rulings · your files + case-law database
And the recoverable loss? Which court has jurisdiction?
Loss: in principle the loss of margin over variable costs (the “expected gross margin” within the meaning of Cass. com. 28 June 2023) over the notice period that should have been given.
Jurisdiction: specialised commercial courts at first instance; the Paris Court of Appeal alone on appeal.
I am preparing a formal notice and a draft pleading from your templates.
✎ Action · draft ready for review — the lawyer approves
Jurisdiction: specialised commercial courts at first instance; the Paris Court of Appeal alone on appeal.
I am preparing a formal notice and a draft pleading from your templates.
✎ Action · draft ready for review — the lawyer approves
Data hosted in France · sovereign model as an option
Data hosted in France
Hosted in FranceAI model called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option
Professional secrecy preserved
GDPR & AI Act: governed deploymentTraceability & human oversight
TurnkeyDesigned, installed and operated for you
The lawyer decidesThe agent carries out what you have authorised
For an organisation established outside the European Union, the law of its own country applies; at its request, we put equivalent safeguards in place (human review before any action, a log of the criteria, information for the people concerned).
✦ In brief
In a law firm, a Blue Lemon Agent agent speeds up legal research, first drafts of documents, case summaries and client reception. Data hosted in France; the AI model is called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option. With that option, the exhibits are never exposed to a foreign service, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity. The lawyer keeps the decision and the responsibility. Live within a few weeks Your teams write to it from Microsoft Teams, Slack or their email, and your clients reach it on WhatsApp Business, your website chat or email — with no account to create and nothing to install. As these messaging tools are run by third parties, the firm chooses which channels it opens and makes that known to its clients. These connections are included in every plan, at no extra cost, within the number of connections set out in your agent's quote.
100%
hosted in France in the target architecture
0
transfer outside the EU with the Sovereign model option (target architecture)
2
uses ready to deploy on this scope
0
decision with a legal or significant effect taken by an agent
Reference points describing our offer, not results measured at a client. The scale of the gain is confirmed by a pilot on your own scope.
Indicative estimate, to be confirmed by a pilot on your real files (general terms of sale, article 4).
Pricing
Three options, one agent
A legal agent (research, contracts, case law), installed and operated for you. Choose according to how you work. Prices exclude VAT — annual subscription, the time it takes for the gains to settle in.
Agility
Setup + controlled subscription
2,685 € excl. VAT setup
then 313 € excl. VAT/month — you invest at installation and pay a reduced subscription. Ideal for keeping the cost under control over time.
- Installation, configuration and training for your teams
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Hosting in France, a dedicated and isolated resource
The simplest
Serenity
All inclusive, no setup fee
463 € excl. VAT /month
all inclusive, immediate start. No upfront investment: a single subscription. Ideal for starting quickly and simply.
- Setup included (installation, configuration, training)
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Hosting in France, managed end to end
100% Sovereign
On site, you own it
4,705 € excl. VAT setup
then 423 € excl. VAT/month · + hardware from 2,491 € (one-off purchase, in addition) — a sovereign computer installed on your premises, maintained remotely. Models run locally, your data returned at the end of the contract.
- Hardware installed on your premises (you own it)
- French / European AI models run locally
- Secure remote maintenance (Pro support included)
Included in the package: hosting and AI consumption up to the volume of your capacity tier, in documents, exchanges, tokens and storage; beyond that, re-invoiced at real cost with no margin, tracked in your client area as usage statements are issued. Maintenance and supervision subscription for an initial term of 12 months for the Agility package, 24 months for the Serenity package and 36 months for the 100% Sovereign package, renewable; support levels (SLA 72 h / 24 h / 4 h) optional. Bespoke development, additional integrations or exceptional volumes are quoted separately. Support Monday to Friday, 9am to 6pm. Prices exclude VAT.
AI model:
none of the AI models offered currently carries a fixed surcharge. When the selected model carries a cost, that cost is shown when you choose it, before you order, and re-invoiced at the cost incurred, with no mark-up; usage is billed at the publisher's price. Publishers' prices are published in US dollars: the amount re-invoiced is the amount in euros actually borne by Blue Lemon Agent on the publisher's invoice, at that invoice's exchange rate, with no commission or mark-up.
Included components and additional components Components included in the base offer: the Blue Lemon Agent software foundation, the AI models listed in the order journey, the standard channels (Microsoft Teams, Slack, WhatsApp Business, email, website chat, calendars, Microsoft 365 / Google Workspace, file storage, market VoIP telephony, professional social-media pages and accounts, Google Business Profile), hosting for the package chosen, in France by default, backups, supervision, updates and support. If adapting the AI agent to your constraints, your needs or your requests requires other paid components — a third-party publisher's software licence, paid API access to one of your applications, hosting of health data, for which French law requires an HDS-certified host (art. L. 1111-8 of the French Public Health Code), SecNumCloud-qualified hosting, a speech synthesis service, particular hardware —, they are offered to you as an option or on quotation and re-invoiced at the cost incurred; nothing is committed without your written agreement. Where the artificial intelligence model you choose entails an additional cost, that cost is shown to you before you order and re-invoiced to you at the cost incurred, with no margin.
What to expect
Go-live
2 to 3 weeks
Agent designed, channels connected, team trained.
Steady state
4 to 7 weeks
After a few weeks of real use, once the agent's behaviour matches what you expect.
Indicative estimate, adjusted to the options you keep. It is not a delivery commitment.
Use cases
The uses of AI in a law firm
What the agent does in a law firm, and the neighbouring agents we deploy for the rest. The agent carries out by itself what you authorise it to do; you decide what it does on its own and what it submits to you. The lawyer keeps the decision.
Included in your agent
The 2 capabilities essential to this promise are included, at no extra cost.
From 313 € excl. VAT / month
The practice's memory
Instantly find a piece of information in your files and templates through a document agent.
Reception & client relations
Answer everyday enquiries and route requests through a support agent.
Controls and safeguards
These 5 controls are built into the agent: they frame what it does, whatever plan you pick. They are not chosen and are not added to your order.
Human oversight, costs, quality, incidents and safe stop
Work from a versioned corpus with citations and the law as it stood on a given date
Preserve confidentiality, compartmentalisation and access logging
Manage deadlines, versions, evidence and human validation
Flag uncertainties and reserve advice, decision and signature for the lawyer
What the agent must be connected to
This connection is required for the agent to work. It concerns your information system and is scoped during the audit.
Handoff contracts, least-privilege permissions and shared context
Other needs our agents cover
Each card says how the matching agent can be obtained today: available, on quote, or not yet in the catalogue.
AI customer support agent
Frequent questions, order tracking, level 1 issues: a sovereign AI agent, hosted in France, answering 24/7 and escalating to a person.
Available View the agent page →Need to go further?
These agents handle a different business process, with their own owner and their own price. They are added to this one.
Legal document agent (litigation)
RAG, deadlines.
Legal document agent (litigation) from 390 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →Compliance / regulatory control agent
Business rules, traceability.
Compliance / regulatory control agent from 371 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →Sourced business document search
Regulatory and legal bases, doctrine.
Sourced business document search from 470 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →HR document management agent
Staff files, compliance.
HR document management agent from 370 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →Critical banking compliance agent (KYC/AML)
Regulatory, traceability, audit.
Critical banking compliance agent (KYC/AML) from 386 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →AI legal assistant
Case-law research, contract review and drafting, litigation follow-up, answers to the business: your AI agent absorbs the repetitive work of the legal department.
Legal agent (contract / case law search) from 485 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →Help with replies
A reply to a parliamentary question, to a letter from an elected representative or to a complaint draws on texts, data and positions already settled.
Help with replies (parliamentary questions, letters from elected members, complaints) from 310 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →Document summaries
A three-hundred-page report, a study, a case-law file: reading it in full is not always possible in the time available.
Summarising bulky documents from 290 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →
Does your need fall outside this?
Build your agent
In 30 minutes we identify the most relevant agent — without oversizing the project.
Demonstration
See the agent at work
6 everyday situations, taken from those that come up most often. Pick one: the exchange unfolds as it would in your organisation.
A scripted demonstration. These exchanges show how the agent behaves — its sources, its refusals, what it leaves to your teams. Nothing is sent from this page, no model is queried here, and the matters named are fictional. That is precisely what we promise your data. The behaviours shown here — monitoring, automation rules, routing and reminders — are configured with you during deployment, from your tools, your rules and your thresholds. The architecture points named in these exchanges — location, local execution, isolation, encryption, role-based access, logging — are not a guarantee attached to the demonstration: they are those of the architecture set out in your quotation, and verified before commissioning.
Legal assistant · hosted in France
Fictional simulation — not a client result
Three things this morning, without your asking.
· Ternois matter — a deadline is running. The other side's submissions were served on 24/07. The time to respond expires in 6 days and nothing is on file.
· Halvex matter — a document has arrived. The other side's exhibit 14, the one missing from the schedule, was served yesterday at 18:12. It contradicts the date on the acceptance record.
· Brissac matter — a signature is missing. The settlement agreement came back from the client without initials on page 3. morning-watch_3-alerts.pdf3 matters · deadlines and documents
⛓ Source · court filing system, schedules, the firm's matters
· Ternois matter — a deadline is running. The other side's submissions were served on 24/07. The time to respond expires in 6 days and nothing is on file.
· Halvex matter — a document has arrived. The other side's exhibit 14, the one missing from the schedule, was served yesterday at 18:12. It contradicts the date on the acceptance record.
· Brissac matter — a signature is missing. The settlement agreement came back from the client without initials on page 3. morning-watch_3-alerts.pdf3 matters · deadlines and documents
⛓ Source · court filing system, schedules, the firm's matters
The Ternois deadline — running from exactly when?
Since service on 24 July, the acknowledgement of which is on file. The period applied is the one set in the case management order, which you hold on file at tab 12 — I locate it, I do not reproduce it.
I have not recomputed it. The rules for counting — the day of service, the deferral of a period ending on a public holiday — call for a check that is yours to make: it is your signature at stake, not mine.
I have prepared the table of deadlines for this file, with the act that starts each one.
✎ Support · sourced deadlines — the computation stays to be checked
I have not recomputed it. The rules for counting — the day of service, the deferral of a period ending on a public holiday — call for a check that is yours to make: it is your signature at stake, not mine.
I have prepared the table of deadlines for this file, with the act that starts each one.
✎ Support · sourced deadlines — the computation stays to be checked
How did you see all that?
I watch, continuously, what you have opened to me: filings made, schedules served, documents coming in, dates recorded on the matters. When a deadline draws near or an expected document arrives, I say so — I do not wait to be asked.
What it has already given you back this morning: six days of time on the Ternois matter seen while they are still usable, an exhibit served at 18:12 read before you and set against an acceptance record it contradicts, an un-initialled settlement caught before it went back to the client. Three matters brought back inside the firm's own time, with nobody asking.
The access stays yours: matter by matter, opened by role, logged, withdrawn on a word — and privilege does not leave the firm, local inference with the 100% Sovereign package; with the Agility and Serenity packages, data hosted in France, AI model called at its publisher except with the Sovereign model option. What I prepare, you sign: I gather the documents, I date them, I build the matter's chronology and I locate the tab that grounds each deadline; the computation, the characterisation and the strategy stay your pen — it is your signature at stake, and the time I give back is invested there.
If you want it, this list can reach you every morning at a time you choose, and a deadline within 7 days can send a reminder to the colleague running the matter — then to the supervising partner if it goes unanswered for 48 hours. You set the thresholds, you stop it whenever you like.
✎ Support · monitoring offered — no filings, no guarantee
What it has already given you back this morning: six days of time on the Ternois matter seen while they are still usable, an exhibit served at 18:12 read before you and set against an acceptance record it contradicts, an un-initialled settlement caught before it went back to the client. Three matters brought back inside the firm's own time, with nobody asking.
The access stays yours: matter by matter, opened by role, logged, withdrawn on a word — and privilege does not leave the firm, local inference with the 100% Sovereign package; with the Agility and Serenity packages, data hosted in France, AI model called at its publisher except with the Sovereign model option. What I prepare, you sign: I gather the documents, I date them, I build the matter's chronology and I locate the tab that grounds each deadline; the computation, the characterisation and the strategy stay your pen — it is your signature at stake, and the time I give back is invested there.
If you want it, this list can reach you every morning at a time you choose, and a deadline within 7 days can send a reminder to the colleague running the matter — then to the supervising partner if it goes unanswered for 48 hours. You set the thresholds, you stop it whenever you like.
✎ Support · monitoring offered — no filings, no guarantee
Fictional simulation — not a client result
This case file runs to 480 pages. Build the chronology of events and tell me what is missing before Thursday's hearing.
Chronology reconstructed from the events, the correspondence and the procedural steps, each item referred back to the exhibit number and page it came from.
Two points flagged: the other side's exhibit 14 is relied on in their submissions but absent from the schedule; the date on the delivery note (exhibit 7) contradicts the one on the acceptance record (exhibit 22). summary-note_Sorene-Halvex.pdf3 pages · PDF schedule-of-exhibits.csv47 numbered exhibits
⛓ Source · case exhibits, numbers given
Two points flagged: the other side's exhibit 14 is relied on in their submissions but absent from the schedule; the date on the delivery note (exhibit 7) contradicts the one on the acceptance record (exhibit 22). summary-note_Sorene-Halvex.pdf3 pages · PDF schedule-of-exhibits.csv47 numbered exhibits
⛓ Source · case exhibits, numbers given
Draft the request for disclosure of exhibit 14.
Letter prepared against the other side's schedule, quoting the exact reference of the exhibit and the date it was relied upon.
No deadline and no hearing date has been committed to: those are yours to set. disclosure-request-exhibit-14.pdf1 page · to complete
✎ Action · letter to review — the solicitor signs
No deadline and no hearing date has been committed to: those are yours to set. disclosure-request-exhibit-14.pdf1 page · to complete
✎ Action · letter to review — the solicitor signs
Fictional simulation — not a client result
Prepare a formal demand for unpaid invoices from our template, Martin file.
Draft written on the firm's template, with its standard clauses untouched. Amounts, due dates and invoice references taken from the file.
Three passages left blank: the exact contractual basis, the period allowed and the applicable interest rate — nothing in the file establishes them, and I do not invent them. formal-demand_Martin_v1.pdf2 pages · 3 fields to complete
⛓ Source · Martin file + firm templates
Three passages left blank: the exact contractual basis, the period allowed and the applicable interest rate — nothing in the file establishes them, and I do not invent them. formal-demand_Martin_v1.pdf2 pages · 3 fields to complete
⛓ Source · Martin file + firm templates
The rate is the one in the framework agreement.
Added, with a reference to the clause of the framework agreement on file. The interest calculation is set out line by line, to be checked rather than taken on trust.
The letter is neither signed nor sent: it is waiting for your approval. formal-demand_Martin_v2.pdf2 pages · interest calculation attached
✎ Action · draft complete — the solicitor approves and signs
The letter is neither signed nor sent: it is waiting for your approval. formal-demand_Martin_v2.pdf2 pages · interest calculation attached
✎ Action · draft complete — the solicitor approves and signs
Fictional simulation — not a client result
A prospective client, Vernet & Fils, is calling about a dispute against Delrieu. Can we see them?
Checked against the firm's client and matter records: Delrieu is a client of the firm on two live matters, run by Me Aubertin.
I am not booking this appointment. A conflict of interest under the profession's rules is not settled by an agent: the judgement belongs to the solicitor, and where necessary to the Bar.
⛓ Source · the firm's client and matter records
I am not booking this appointment. A conflict of interest under the profession's rules is not settled by an agent: the judgement belongs to the solicitor, and where necessary to the Bar.
⛓ Source · the firm's client and matter records
And if it were simply a case of the same name?
That is possible: I am setting out both records — name, company number, address, matters attached — so that you can decide.
Until you have decided, no appointment is offered and nothing is disclosed to Vernet & Fils.
One more thing, since I ran the check: four prospective clients are waiting for an appointment this week. Two have names close to an opposing party in your live matters. Shall I list them?
And this can become systematic, if you decide so: every new appointment request checked against the client and matter records before any slot is offered.
I would still settle nothing — I would flag it, and the appointment would wait for your judgement. The check warns, it does not decide. match_Delrieu_2-records.pdfcompany numbers, addresses, matters
✎ Support · the facts assembled — the decision stays a professional one
Until you have decided, no appointment is offered and nothing is disclosed to Vernet & Fils.
One more thing, since I ran the check: four prospective clients are waiting for an appointment this week. Two have names close to an opposing party in your live matters. Shall I list them?
And this can become systematic, if you decide so: every new appointment request checked against the client and matter records before any slot is offered.
I would still settle nothing — I would flag it, and the appointment would wait for your judgement. The check warns, it does not decide. match_Delrieu_2-records.pdfcompany numbers, addresses, matters
✎ Support · the facts assembled — the decision stays a professional one
And routine calls and emails — the front desk of the practice. Can you handle that?
Reception and client relations, yes — and the line is clear: I report the state of a file, never its likely outcome.
Over the last quarter, 714 enquiries by phone, web form and email. 561 are routine requests and are answered from your practice management data:
· 206 on the progress of a file — last document filed, next date in the diary, document awaited from the client. I quote the date and the exhibit number, without commenting on what the document means;
· 134 on fees — the terms in the signed engagement letter, the instalment schedule, the balance. The engagement letter governs, and I quote it;
· 112 on documents to supply for an open file, listed from what is actually missing;
· 109 on booking a meeting, the address, opening hours, access to the practice.
153 went up to a lawyer, and that split is not negotiable: anything calling for a legal view, an estimate of prospects, a limitation period to characterise, or the opening of a new matter. They arrive with the first-contact sheet already filled in — identity, named opponent, subject, stated urgency — and the conflict check already run, the one we have just done.
What protects privilege: reception runs on the same installation as everything else, hosted in France, and no case document is ever attached to a reception answer — a progress update takes one sentence, it needs no exhibit.
A figure I publish about myself: of the 561, 19 answers were redone by the secretariat, 15 of them on files where a hearing had been adjourned without the adjournment being entered in the diary. Progress answers now rest on the last document received rather than the last date keyed in; two redone across the following 178 enquiries.
✎ Framework · reception and client relations, from practice management data only
Over the last quarter, 714 enquiries by phone, web form and email. 561 are routine requests and are answered from your practice management data:
· 206 on the progress of a file — last document filed, next date in the diary, document awaited from the client. I quote the date and the exhibit number, without commenting on what the document means;
· 134 on fees — the terms in the signed engagement letter, the instalment schedule, the balance. The engagement letter governs, and I quote it;
· 112 on documents to supply for an open file, listed from what is actually missing;
· 109 on booking a meeting, the address, opening hours, access to the practice.
153 went up to a lawyer, and that split is not negotiable: anything calling for a legal view, an estimate of prospects, a limitation period to characterise, or the opening of a new matter. They arrive with the first-contact sheet already filled in — identity, named opponent, subject, stated urgency — and the conflict check already run, the one we have just done.
What protects privilege: reception runs on the same installation as everything else, hosted in France, and no case document is ever attached to a reception answer — a progress update takes one sentence, it needs no exhibit.
A figure I publish about myself: of the 561, 19 answers were redone by the secretariat, 15 of them on files where a hearing had been adjourned without the adjournment being entered in the diary. Progress answers now rest on the last document received rather than the last date keyed in; two redone across the following 178 enquiries.
✎ Framework · reception and client relations, from practice management data only
Fictional simulation — not a client result
A document in the Brissac matter arrived on the associate's phone on Tuesday, and it has not been left where it is.
What I see: the client sent the initialled page 3 of the settlement agreement by instant messaging, on Tuesday at 18:27. The associate flagged it to me this morning. The file itself still reads “agreement not initialled” since 04/08.
The rule to apply here has not yet been defined: your file-keeping rules name the channels by which a document enters, and instant messaging is not one of them. So I have filed nothing on my own — and the document is identified, with its timestamp.
Three ways forward. Do not file it and ask for it through the channel set out in the engagement letter: in line with your rules, and the document has existed since Tuesday with nothing in the file showing it. File it as it stands, dated from its arrival on the phone: the file is complete this morning, and the document enters with its provenance established by nothing but a screenshot. File it as a pending document, dated from its arrival, with a request for a proper transmission that will replace it: the date is kept and the file loses nothing, at the cost of a document to replace when the proper transmission arrives.
I recommend the third. A date of receipt cannot be recovered, and your schedules of documents are built on dates: it is the only one of the three that keeps 05/08 at 18:27 while letting the file close on a proper document.
You can also give me another rule of your own — for instance: a pending document is only filed if it carries a date or a signature that starts something running; otherwise it stays outside the file until the proper transmission.
Shall I remember it for the next documents? Of your 714 contacts this quarter, 38 carried a document received off the channel set out in the engagement letter. If you approve the rule, I will handle them that way instead of sending them up one by one, and I will give you the count each month, matter by matter.
⛓ Source · document received 05/08 at 18:27, file-keeping rules, engagement letters, 714 contacts this quarter of which 38 comparable
What I see: the client sent the initialled page 3 of the settlement agreement by instant messaging, on Tuesday at 18:27. The associate flagged it to me this morning. The file itself still reads “agreement not initialled” since 04/08.
The rule to apply here has not yet been defined: your file-keeping rules name the channels by which a document enters, and instant messaging is not one of them. So I have filed nothing on my own — and the document is identified, with its timestamp.
Three ways forward. Do not file it and ask for it through the channel set out in the engagement letter: in line with your rules, and the document has existed since Tuesday with nothing in the file showing it. File it as it stands, dated from its arrival on the phone: the file is complete this morning, and the document enters with its provenance established by nothing but a screenshot. File it as a pending document, dated from its arrival, with a request for a proper transmission that will replace it: the date is kept and the file loses nothing, at the cost of a document to replace when the proper transmission arrives.
I recommend the third. A date of receipt cannot be recovered, and your schedules of documents are built on dates: it is the only one of the three that keeps 05/08 at 18:27 while letting the file close on a proper document.
You can also give me another rule of your own — for instance: a pending document is only filed if it carries a date or a signature that starts something running; otherwise it stays outside the file until the proper transmission.
Shall I remember it for the next documents? Of your 714 contacts this quarter, 38 carried a document received off the channel set out in the engagement letter. If you approve the rule, I will handle them that way instead of sending them up one by one, and I will give you the count each month, matter by matter.
⛓ Source · document received 05/08 at 18:27, file-keeping rules, engagement letters, 714 contacts this quarter of which 38 comparable
The third. But the pending document has to show as such on the schedule, not sit with the others — otherwise it will go out in disclosure without anyone noticing.
Written exactly as you just said it, and it carries your correction.
The rule, in one sentence: a document received off-channel is filed as a pending document, dated from its receipt; it appears as such on the schedule and cannot be disclosed as it stands; and the request for a proper transmission goes out the same day.
Why your correction matters more than it looks: a pending document sitting with the others stops being one at the first schedule. Visible, it reminds every reader that a transmission is awaited — which is exactly what opposing exhibit 14 lacked, cited in the submissions and absent from the schedule.
What it changes this morning: the initialled page 3 is in the Brissac file as a pending document, dated 05/08 at 18:27, marked on the schedule, and the request for transmission through the engagement letter's channel went to the client at 9:14.
What lets you undo it: the rule is written into your file-keeping rules under its own name, with its date, the lawyer who approved it and the document that gave rise to it. You remove one line, and these documents stay outside the file until a proper transmission.
✎ Rule approved · file-keeping rules, entry “document received off-channel”, approved on 11/08
The rule, in one sentence: a document received off-channel is filed as a pending document, dated from its receipt; it appears as such on the schedule and cannot be disclosed as it stands; and the request for a proper transmission goes out the same day.
Why your correction matters more than it looks: a pending document sitting with the others stops being one at the first schedule. Visible, it reminds every reader that a transmission is awaited — which is exactly what opposing exhibit 14 lacked, cited in the submissions and absent from the schedule.
What it changes this morning: the initialled page 3 is in the Brissac file as a pending document, dated 05/08 at 18:27, marked on the schedule, and the request for transmission through the engagement letter's channel went to the client at 9:14.
What lets you undo it: the rule is written into your file-keeping rules under its own name, with its date, the lawyer who approved it and the document that gave rise to it. You remove one line, and these documents stay outside the file until a proper transmission.
✎ Rule approved · file-keeping rules, entry “document received off-channel”, approved on 11/08
The 38 off-channel documents this quarter — who do they come from?
From nine clients, and those nine have something in common I was not expecting.
What I looked at: the 38 documents received off-channel, the client who sent each, the engagement letter each signed, and the time each one took to regularise.
What comes out of it: 31 of the 38 come from 9 clients, and all 9 signed their engagement letter before 2023 — that is, before the transmission channel appeared in it. The other clients send through the proper channel, because it is written in what they signed.
What it costs today: each off-channel document takes 14 minutes to regularise — chaser, filing, schedule update — that is 8 h 52 over the quarter. And in 3 cases the document was filed after the schedule had been served, which required an amended schedule.
What I propose, and it is a one-page amendment: that the standard engagement letter carry the channel for transmitting documents, and that the 9 clients concerned receive the corresponding amendment with their next invoice. I draft it on your template, you review it once, it then serves for all.
What it is worth: 31 of the 38 documents fall under those 9 engagement letters; once the amendment is signed, they arrive through the proper channel and there is nothing left to regularise. The remaining 7 come from 7 different clients and are handled case by case.
The decision is yours: an engagement letter is amended by an agreement signed on both sides, and I only write the draft.
✎ Proposal · 38 off-channel documents, 31 from 9 clients whose engagement letters predate 2023, 14 minutes each to regularise or 8 h 52, 3 amended schedules — the amendment belongs to the firm and its clients
What I looked at: the 38 documents received off-channel, the client who sent each, the engagement letter each signed, and the time each one took to regularise.
What comes out of it: 31 of the 38 come from 9 clients, and all 9 signed their engagement letter before 2023 — that is, before the transmission channel appeared in it. The other clients send through the proper channel, because it is written in what they signed.
What it costs today: each off-channel document takes 14 minutes to regularise — chaser, filing, schedule update — that is 8 h 52 over the quarter. And in 3 cases the document was filed after the schedule had been served, which required an amended schedule.
What I propose, and it is a one-page amendment: that the standard engagement letter carry the channel for transmitting documents, and that the 9 clients concerned receive the corresponding amendment with their next invoice. I draft it on your template, you review it once, it then serves for all.
What it is worth: 31 of the 38 documents fall under those 9 engagement letters; once the amendment is signed, they arrive through the proper channel and there is nothing left to regularise. The remaining 7 come from 7 different clients and are handled case by case.
The decision is yours: an engagement letter is amended by an agreement signed on both sides, and I only write the draft.
✎ Proposal · 38 off-channel documents, 31 from 9 clients whose engagement letters predate 2023, 14 minutes each to regularise or 8 h 52, 3 amended schedules — the amendment belongs to the firm and its clients
Fictional simulation — not a client result
Have we ever argued a non-compete clause in the pharmaceutical sector?
Legal assistant Four matters match:
· Sorène / Byram Pharma — employment tribunal, Lyon, 2019, clause struck down for want of financial consideration;
· Néralis / Vallon Diagnostics — Versailles Court of Appeal, 2021, clause upheld, scope narrowed;
· Ostrémis / Ker Santé — employment tribunal, Nanterre, 2023, settled;
· Pharmadis / Groupe Kelmer — Paris Court of Appeal, 2025, judgment reserved.
Pleadings and exhibits attached, with the colleague who ran each matter.
The search is limited to the firm's own matters: nothing is queried outside.
And one more thing, since the rule you approved on off-channel documents: the 9 engagement letters predating 2023 now carry their signed amendment, and those nine clients' documents arrive through the proper channel — 2 pending documents this month against 31 in the previous quarter.
⛓ Source · the firm's matters, 2019-2025
· Sorène / Byram Pharma — employment tribunal, Lyon, 2019, clause struck down for want of financial consideration;
· Néralis / Vallon Diagnostics — Versailles Court of Appeal, 2021, clause upheld, scope narrowed;
· Ostrémis / Ker Santé — employment tribunal, Nanterre, 2023, settled;
· Pharmadis / Groupe Kelmer — Paris Court of Appeal, 2025, judgment reserved.
Pleadings and exhibits attached, with the colleague who ran each matter.
The search is limited to the firm's own matters: nothing is queried outside.
And one more thing, since the rule you approved on off-channel documents: the 9 engagement letters predating 2023 now carry their signed amendment, and those nine clients' documents arrive through the proper channel — 2 pending documents this month against 31 in the previous quarter.
⛓ Source · the firm's matters, 2019-2025
Pull out the clauses the courts actually upheld.
Legal assistant Extracts set side by side, each with its decision and the page it appears on. Two drafts were rejected: the reasoning is quoted word for word.
No statement of the law is produced here — these are your matters, not a survey of case law.
I can hand over to your Legal research agent, which queries published sources. Shall I pass it on? clauses-compared_4-matters.pdf4 extracts · linked to the decisions
✎ Support · sourced extracts — the analysis stays yours
No statement of the law is produced here — these are your matters, not a survey of case law.
I can hand over to your Legal research agent, which queries published sources. Shall I pass it on? clauses-compared_4-matters.pdf4 extracts · linked to the decisions
✎ Support · sourced extracts — the analysis stays yours
Yes, pass it on.
Legal assistant Request passed to the Legal research agent: non-compete clause, conditions of validity, pharmaceutical sector.
No document from your matters was attached: the question is about the law, not about your clients.
✎ Action · handover between agents, scope narrowed to the question
No document from your matters was attached: the question is about the law, not about your clients.
✎ Action · handover between agents, scope narrowed to the question
Legal research agent The leading authority is Cass. soc., 10 juillet 2002, n° 00-45.135: a non-compete clause is lawful only where it is essential to protect the firm's legitimate interests, limited in time and in space, takes account of the specifics of the employee's role and provides financial consideration — these conditions being cumulative.
Each decision is cited with its docket number and links to its full text.
I list, I do not comment.
⛓ Source · Légifrance — full text for each decision
Each decision is cited with its docket number and links to its full text.
I list, I do not comment.
⛓ Source · Légifrance — full text for each decision
Legal assistant Set against your matters: that is the ground on which the clause fell in Sorène / Byram Pharma. The other three were not decided on that basis.
The comparison is presented, not concluded — two agents, a single point of supervision, and the decision stays yours. case-law-note_non-compete.pdfdecisions listed · Légifrance links
✎ Support · two agents under one supervision — the solicitor decides
The comparison is presented, not concluded — two agents, a single point of supervision, and the decision stays yours. case-law-note_non-compete.pdfdecisions listed · Légifrance links
✎ Support · two agents under one supervision — the solicitor decides
Data hosted in France · sovereign model as an option
Your case is not here? That is exactly what a 30-minute conversation is for. Discuss your project →
How it works
The stages of your AI agent project
1
Audit & scoping
30 minutes to target the use case with the best return.
2
Quote or direct sign-up
A catalogue offer is bought online; a specific need gets a costed quote.
3
Design
We design the agent and its guardrails.
4
Integration & testing
We connect your tools to the agent, which is itself hosted in France.
5
Rollout
Going live and training your team.
6
Operation
Continuous supervision and improvement.
The context
Why AI matters to lawyers — and why they hesitate
Firms are caught between more demanding clients and a growing documentary workload. Consumer AI answers the urgency… at the price of an unacceptable risk to secrecy.
! The issue
Clients expect more responsiveness and transparency, while the repetitive workload at the bottom of the chain keeps growing. Yet many AI solutions amount to entrusting exhibits covered by professional secrecy to a third party, often hosted outside Europe and subject to the Cloud Act.
✓ Our answer
AI is only of interest to a lawyer if it is sovereign and confidential by design. Local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France, systematic human oversight, decisions reserved to the lawyer: the responsiveness gained is never paid for in lost confidentiality.
The decisive point
Confidentiality first: professional secrecy & sovereignty
Professional secrecy is a pillar of the profession. Here is how the architecture of our agents protects it, file by file.
Local inference
With the 100% Sovereign package, the agent runs on a machine in the practice: no document leaves the network, nothing passes through a cloud.
Hosting in France
Otherwise, with the Agility and Serenity packages, a dedicated, isolated resource hosted in France, under French law: data hosted in France; the AI model is called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option.
Reduced extraterritorial exposure
Secrecy: architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
One isolated resource per practice
No pooling of sensitive data: an environment strictly dedicated to your firm.
Encryption & controlled access
Encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access (RBAC), strong authentication and logging.
AI Act: governed deployment
The agent carries out what you have authorised; no decision with a legal or significant effect taken by an agent; traceability and human oversight from end to end.
What depends on the architecture chosen These points are not general guarantees: they are settled deployment by deployment, in the quotation.
- The applicable location is that of the architecture set out in the quotation and verified before commissioning.
- Local execution is announced only for the configuration explicitly described and accepted in the quotation.
- The applicable isolation depends on the deployment mode set out in the quotation; no dedicated isolation is presumed.
- The encryption mechanisms in transit and at rest, their components and key management are those documented for the architecture chosen.
- Roles and permissions are configured and accepted for the identities and systems actually connected.
- The events logged, their content, their retention period and who may access them are defined for the deployment chosen.
For the most sensitive data, SecNumCloud and HDS options are available depending on your requirements. A single architecture is designed to answer both the GDPR and extraterritorial exposure. Designed for deployment in line with the GDPR and the AI Act, after the processing, roles and context-specific risks have been assessed.
The gain
How much time can a practice win back?
By automating documentary research and the outline of documents, the firm redirects hours towards advice — the heart of the profession.
Case-law research
First version of a document (from a template)
Summarising a bulky file
Qualitative, non-contractual comparison: the proportions shown illustrate the shift of the work towards review, they represent no measurement. Every output of the agent is reviewed and approved by a competent person.
Indicative estimate, to be confirmed by a pilot on your real files (general terms of sale, article 4).
Our commitment
Four guarantees that matter to a practice
With 100% Sovereign, secrecy never leaves the firmData hosted in France on an isolated resource; the AI model is called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option. With that option, no document entrusted to a foreign third party.
Data in France, under French lawSecrecy: minimisation and location in France, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
The lawyer keeps the decisionThe agent produces verifiable research, summaries and outlines; no decision is automated.
Human oversight & traceabilityLegal research: monitoring, updates and logging.
Frequently asked questions
Your questions, our answers
Does AI respect the lawyer's professional secrecy?
Yes, provided the data is never exposed to a third party. Data hosted in France on a dedicated, isolated resource; the AI model is called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option. With that option, case exhibits do not leave a controlled environment and do not pass through a foreign service subject to the Cloud Act.
Can AI replace a lawyer?
No. The agent carries out what you have authorised: it speeds up research, drafting and summarising, but the lawyer keeps the decision and the responsibility. Everything the AI produces has to be checked by the lawyer — which is also an AI Act requirement for legal uses.
Where is the firm's data hosted?
Either on a machine in the firm (local inference, nothing leaves the network), or on a dedicated resource hosted in France under French law. In both cases, the data does not leave the European Union and stays covered by an architecture designed to reduce exposure to the American Cloud Act, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
How are the GDPR and the AI Act taken into account?
Designed for deployment in line with the GDPR and the AI Act, after the processing, roles and context-specific risks have been assessed. Native data localisation and minimisation (GDPR), encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access (RBAC), strong authentication and logging. The agent stays in support, taking no decision with a legal or significant effect, with human oversight and traceability.
What concrete gains for a firm?
Illustratively, and to be validated by a pilot: case-law research cut from 1–2 hours to 10–20 minutes, a first version of a document from a template from 1 hour to 15 minutes, summarising a bulky file from 2–3 hours to 30 minutes. The time freed up is redirected towards billable advice.
Do you have to be a large practice to equip yourself?
No. The offer suits a sole practitioner just as well as a multidisciplinary practice.
How long does it take to deploy an agent?
A few weeks as a rule, after a 30-minute meeting with our sales team that identifies the use case with the best return, then a phase of design, integration and testing before going live and training your team.
Which tools can people use to talk to the agent?
The ones you already use. Internally, the firm writes to the agent from Microsoft Teams, Slack or by email, just as it would to a colleague: nothing to install, nothing to learn. On the client side, the agent answers on WhatsApp Business, your website chat and email — people reach you where they already write, with no account to create. The risk must be named: these messaging tools are run by third parties, the content of an exchange passes through their servers and may be kept there beyond the firm's control, and a message stays readable on a locked screen. The choice of which channels to open therefore belongs to the firm, which makes it known to its clients: many open these messaging tools only for reception and appointment booking, and keep the substance of a case to the channels they control. You keep control from a web dashboard. These connectors rely on open standards, including the MCP protocol; they are included in every plan, at no extra cost, within the number of connections set out in your agent's quote. Only the fees charged by the platforms themselves — WhatsApp Business bills per conversation — are passed on at actual cost, with no margin, outside the subscription.
Related industries
Other professions bound by secrecy
Let's talk
Let us estimate the potential in your practice
30 minutes to identify the use case with the best return — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.