From a pile of documents
to a record counsel can use.
See how a configured workflow could help a legal team list contract dates, find earlier advice and index evidence, with sources attached and lawyers deciding.
Three tasksWho decides, at every stepPublished sources linked
Follow three tasks. Each shows a request, an answer that says what it could not check, and who decides.
- 01 / Contract reviewList every date.
Keep the missing schedule visible.Pull the dates and notice periods out of a contract with their clauses, and say what the file does not contain. - 02 / Matter researchFind earlier advice.
Leave out what is restricted.Search the firm’s earlier advice on a point of law, limited to the matters the lawyer may open. - 03 / Drafting & evidenceIndex the evidence.
Counsel decides privilege.Index a document set by date and mark documents that may be privileged for counsel to review.
01 / 03Contract review
List every date.
Keep the missing schedule visible.
Workflow scope
The recurring work
Lawyers read a lease or agreement line by line to find the dates and notice periods that need a reminder. One in a schedule is easy to miss.
Inputs to scope
- Signed agreement
- Schedules and amendments
- Your calendar template
What we would configure
A read-only workflow that lists each date, period and obligation with its clause, and says when a clause points to a document that is not in the file.
Deliverable, decision & acceptance
The deliverable
A table of dates and notice periods with clause references, ready to check.
Your decision point
The lawyer checks every date against the agreement and sets the reminders. The assistant interprets nothing and schedules nothing.
How we would accept it
Trace each entry to its clause, confirm missing schedules were requested, and log corrections with the preparation time.
02 / 03Matter research
Find earlier advice.
Leave out what is restricted.
Workflow scope
The recurring work
Lawyers ask colleagues or search several folders for earlier advice, while some matters must stay closed to certain teams.
Inputs to scope
- Matter library
- Access rules for each matter
- Earlier memos
What we would configure
Search the matter folders each requester can already open, list the memos found with their matter and year, and say that restricted matters were left out. Your access rules stay the source of truth.
Deliverable, decision & acceptance
The deliverable
A list of earlier memos with matter and year, and a note that restricted matters were not searched.
Your decision point
The lawyer reads the memos and decides whether and how to rely on them. Matter access stays with the firm’s own rules and people.
How we would accept it
Test with users who have different access, confirm restricted matters never appear, and check that each listed memo opens from its source.
03 / 03Drafting & evidence
Index the evidence.
Counsel decides privilege.
Workflow scope
The recurring work
Before a response or a disclosure, a team indexes a large document set by hand and flags what counsel must look at.
Inputs to scope
- Matter document set
- Review protocol
- Privilege-flag guidance
What we would configure
A workflow that builds an index by date, author and type, marks documents that match the flags your protocol defines, such as mail from outside counsel, and lists files it could not read.
Deliverable, decision & acceptance
The deliverable
A document index with flags for counsel, and a list of unreadable files.
Your decision point
Counsel decides what is privileged and what is produced. The assistant makes no privilege call and produces nothing.
How we would accept it
Sample the index against the documents, confirm every flagged and unreadable file reached counsel, and log counsel’s changes.
Your existing systems
remain the starting point.
Scope the first workflow around authorized exports from your document management system and matter folders. Native connectors, write-back and production integration are separate deliverables to agree, not implied out-of-the-box features.
Sources
for these tasks.
These sources inform the workflow design, responsibilities and acceptance questions. Your own law, procedures and professional rules decide what applies, and each deployment is agreed and checked with your team.
- ABA: Formal Opinion 512, Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools
Ethics guidance. Lawyers’ duties of competence, confidentiality, communication and supervision when they use generative AI tools.
- ABA: Model Rule 1.6, Confidentiality of Information
Model rule. The duty to make reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized disclosure of, or access to, client information. Each state adopts its own rules.
- Federal Rule of Evidence 502: Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product; Limitations on Waiver
Federal rule. Published by Cornell’s Legal Information Institute; it covers how a disclosure can affect waiver of privilege and work-product protection.
- NIST: AI Risk Management Framework
Voluntary framework. How organizations can govern and manage the risks of AI systems.
Other walkthroughs.
Let’s make AI useful.
For your actual work.
Tell us about a job your team repeats, not your confidential files. We’ll show you how Matrix handles work like it.
Request a demo