Managing partner
You are buying supervision, not software.
Every deliverable is shaped for a supervising lawyer, every citation is checked against its source, and every run, share and result is on a register you can export.
| Matter | Credits | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| CF-2026-0184: Employment | 118 | ≈ £1.18 |
| CF-2026-0176: Due diligence, 50 documents | 2,340 | ≈ £23.40 |
| CF-2026-0201: Horizon digest, weekly | 64 | ≈ £0.64 |
Credits and cost by matter, observed on the billing page, broken down per run.
The day this changes
Before
The question is not whether AI can draft a memo. It obviously can. It is whether you can put your name to what comes out of it and know what your people did with it.
Firms buy tools that fee-earners quietly do not use, because the tool sits outside the matter and the output is a chat transcript rather than something you can send.
Per-seat pricing you cannot predict, on a bill you cannot attribute to a client. If you cannot see what a matter cost, you cannot decide whether to recharge it.
After
A deliverable is a memo with a summary, action items, an authorities tab and a Word download, shaped for the board or the team, not a chat reply.
The audit register holds every run, share and verification result, exportable as a spreadsheet or a printable inspection bundle.
Usage is broken down by matter, so you can see what a run cost and decide whether to recharge it, absorb it, or stop doing it that way.
Grounded on the matter
Adoption fails when the tool sits outside the matter, so using it means re-uploading everything. Here the work happens inside the matter: the conflict check runs on open, the documents are already there, and every run attaches to the client. That is the difference between a tool your associates use once and one they use on the next matter, because the background is already in place.
See how matters workClient
Calder & Finch LLP
Reference
CF-2026-0184
Practice area
Employment
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Responsible partner
R. Okafor
Status
Open
Conflict check on open: clear across 214 matters searched.
Clear- Matter opened: conflict check run automatically.
- Documents added: employment contract, board minutes.
- Contract Agent run completed: 6 action items, 14 authorities.
The matter every run happens inside, with the conflict check on open.
A deliverable, not a chat
Run the Contract Agent on a real agreement and look at what comes back: a memo with a summary, the files it read, action items to confirm, an authorities tab and a Word download. Prepare for shapes the same run into an Executive Brief for the board, bottom line first, or a Work-Stream Memo for the team. That is the difference between a tool your associates use twice and one they use every week.
See the agentsContract Agent Completed
Senior Associate Employment Contract: English Law Review
Calder & Finch LLP · Employment · CF-2026-0184
Summary
Overall risk is HIGH. The UK/Ireland/EU non-compete is likely unenforceable, while the holiday carry-over cap and blanket data/monitoring consent require replacement; the remaining covenants, working-time opt-out and bonus clause should be narrowed and clarified.
- 1. Clause 9(c), non-compete: High: the 12-month prohibition on working for any law firm anywhere in the UK, Ireland or EU is wider than reasonably necessary.§ Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd [2019] UKSC 32
- 2. Clause 11, data and monitoring: High: blanket contractual consent is not an adequate basis for general employment processing or unrestricted monitoring.§ UK GDPR
One run as a memo: summary, action items, authorities, Word download.
Verified, then shareable
A general assistant produces a confident answer with a citation that does not exist; the Divisional Court dealt with exactly that in Ayinde and Al-Haroun. Here sources are a closed list, every citation carries a verdict, and the audit register records every run, share and check. Set the firm policy so work with a failed authority is held until an owner overrides it, with the override recorded.
See the audit register| Date | Event | Matter | Actor | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02 Sep | Run completed | CF-2026-0184 | R. Okafor | Verified |
| 02 Sep | Client share created | CF-2026-0184 | R. Okafor | Verified |
| 01 Sep | Conflict check | CF-2026-0190 | System | Needs a check |
The register of runs, shares and checks, exportable as a bundle.
An employment run costs about 118 credits, about £1.18; a fifty-document diligence pass about £23.40; a weekly digest about £0.64. Observed by matter, not modelled.
See pricingObjections
Our COLP will not sign this off.
Sources are a closed list, every citation carries a verdict, and every run, share and check sits on a register you can export or print as an inspection bundle.
See the audit registerWe already have Copilot.
A general assistant answers from the open web and will cite a case that does not exist. This works from a closed list of primary law and marks each authority verified, needs a check, or not found.
See how verification worksThe price has to make sense.
Per-seat pricing you can read, with usage broken down by matter so you can see what a run cost and decide whether to recharge it. One plan is free.
See pricingSee a deliverable and the register on your own work.
Twenty minutes, on a demo firm, so you can see the memo and the bundle first.