Matter management that matches how your firm actually works.
Intake lives in an email thread. The matter file lives in three places. We build the systems that fix that, and we will tell you where AI helps in legal work and where it really doesn't.
This is a capability page, not a claim of published client work in this industry. Examples show workflows ASLM can assess; requirements, existing tools and domain responsibilities are confirmed before any proposal.
Sound familiar?
- Intake is an email thread and conflicts checking depends on remembering.
- Time recorded at the end of the week is time under-recorded.
- Your retention policy exists in a document that nothing actually enforces.
What changes
What we build for legal.
Every matter opens the same way
Client details, conflicts, engagement terms and risk rating, recorded rather than remembered.
The file is a screen, not an assembly job
Documents, correspondence, time and status, all sitting against the matter.
Retention that actually happens
The policy encoded and enforced, with a record of what was destroyed and when.
AI you can put your name to
Drafting grounded in your own precedents, the source shown every time, a qualified person always in the loop.
Worth knowing
The uncomfortable bit about AI in legal work.
A model doesn't know things. It produces text that fits. Here that means a citation to a case that doesn't exist, filed under your practising certificate, in the same confident tone it uses when it's right. If someone is selling you legal AI without a source on every line, they've removed the part that made it safe.
Where we stand on proof
Compliance engineering rather than legal practice: AML/KYC work, and AI built with an audit trail from the first commit. No law-firm build yet.
See the work →Before you ask
Legal: straight answers.
Usually not, and we will say so early. Those platforms handle the regulated accounting properly and that is genuinely hard. The work worth doing is normally the layer around them — intake, workflow, the reporting the platform will not give you — and the integration between them.
For a first draft that a qualified person reads properly, yes, and it saves real time. For anything relied on without that reading, no — the failure mode is a confident, well-formatted, entirely fabricated authority. The control is not a better model; it is grounding every claim in a retrievable source and keeping a person accountable in the loop.
What leaves your systems and reaches a model provider is a processing decision, not an implementation detail. We tell you precisely what goes where, what is retained and for how long — and where that answer is unacceptable, there are architectures that keep more of it in-house, which we will price instead.
No. Your COLP owns that. We are the engineering side — we build the systems so the evidence your compliance officer needs exists and is retrievable.
Where to go next
Also built for: Financial services & wealth · Professional & B2B services · Property & real estate