The AI agent for law firms: save time without betraying secrecy

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

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

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

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

Checked against the firm's client and matter records: Delrieu is a client of the firm on two live matters, run by M^e 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

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

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 that does not flatter me: 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

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.
⛓ Source · the firm's matters, 2019-2025

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

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

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

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