On the Legal Architecture landing page, there are four formats of engagement. Don’t be put off by the names — each one maps to a specific situation your product is actually in. Here they are in order, from “we have nothing yet” to “we have everything, but it doesn’t work together.”
Format 1. Audit & Second Opinion — “We already have logic, but we’re not sure it’s safe”
When you need it. Your product is already live or close to launch, but no outside expert has checked its legal logic for holes. This is usually the “developers built it as best they understood it, and they didn’t understand everything” situation.
What you get. A rapid review of your existing logic — exactly where the automation might produce a dangerous or legally unsound recommendation — plus a report with specific risk points.
Not your case if there’s no legal logic in the product yet at all — start with Format 2, and an audit makes sense afterward.
Format 2. Core Architecture & Triage Logic — “We’re building from scratch, and there’s no legal logic yet”
When you need it. You’re designing a new LegalTech or FinTech service where decisions need to be made by an algorithm, not manually by a person on every request.
What you get. A complete technical specification for developers — triage logic, decision trees, a Red Flags matrix, a calibration dataset for testing — delivered as JSON schemas and specifications your team can drop straight into code.
Not your case if the product is already live and the question isn’t “how do we design this” but “what’s already broken” — start with Format 1.
Format 3. Legal Maintenance — “The architecture exists, but the law keeps changing”
When you need it. The product’s core is already designed (by me or someone else), but no one has the bandwidth to regularly check whether the logic is falling out of date with new legislation, regulatory requirements, or recent court practice.
What you get. Ongoing support — regular audits and updates to the algorithms as legislation changes.
Not your case if the architecture doesn’t exist yet — there’s nothing to maintain. Start with Format 2.
Format 4. Legal Ops & Client Communication — “The logic works, but the team and clients keep getting lost in it”
When you need it. The product’s legal logic works fine, but your team’s internal processes or client communication in stressful moments are chaotic — lawyers drop cases, and anxious clients abandon the funnel halfway through.
What you get. Legal SLAs and case stages for your CRM, plus communication scenarios for clients under stress — legal-opinion copy, objection-handling scripts, onboarding flows.
Not your case if the problem isn’t process, it’s the underlying logic — that’s Format 2.
Not sure which format is yours?
Start with Audit & Second Opinion — it’s the fastest way to find out what’s actually going on with your logic, and I’ll point you to the right next step from there.
Ran into an unfamiliar term along the way? Everything is explained in plain language in the LegalTech Glossary.