AI that knows your matters

We advise on choosing systems, and on whether to buy off the shelf or build your own. The market for legal AI is growing fast. What matters is finding the tools that fit your caseload, your ways of working and the systems you already have, and at the same time looking at what needs to be done to get as much value out of them as possible.

We build the connections between data, functions and systems, and we do it so that your material and business-critical functions stay with you. That way you can change model or vendor later without rebuilding the business.

The job doesn't stop at the technology. It extends to the solution actually being used and making a measurable difference in daily work. Most AI projects stall because nobody starts using the solution. That's why we put lawyers and developers in the same team.

A language model without access to your data answers based on what it was trained on, plus whatever extra instructions and knowledge the vendor has built in. Getting the full value takes data structure and integrations that work, together with quality control.

This isn't a theoretical problem. An independent study from Stanford RegLab, published in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, found that even purpose-built legal AI tools hallucinate in 17 to 33 percent of cases — tools marketed as free of exactly that.

Fabricated case law gets caught by a database search. Harder to catch are correct citations that don't support the claim they're used for. They pass the check, because they look right.

So we start with what you have: your contracts, your matters, your previous work. An answer that can be traced back to a document in your own practice can be verified. An answer without that link is a well-worded guess.

The frameworks we work within

The Swedish Bar Association's guidance is clear: responsibility for advice applies in full, whether the advice is based wholly or partly on output from generative AI. Professional secrecy must be maintained regardless of how you work, and firms should have their own guidelines on which tools may and may not be used.

The Bar Association's guidance on external IT services was updated in 2026 and reaches the same conclusion as before: there are no real obstacles to cloud services, provided that the protection of client information holds. That proviso is the whole point and it is an architecture question, not a policy question.

We help you work out what applies to your specific use cases, and build so that the answer holds when the question is asked.

Technologies and systems we work with

We build agents where the system answers based on your own documents, contracts, matters and the knowledge in your lawyers' heads with citations back to the source document, so the answer can be checked. We build integrations with case management, document management and time recording systems, so that AI works with the material you already have rather than alongside it.

When you buy off the shelf, we help you evaluate the market and set the right requirements, on where data is stored, what the vendor may use it for, and how you exit the contract with your material intact.

We are vendor-independent. We recommend what actually solves the problem, not what happens to be closest at hand.

How we know it works

Digitala Juristen. An innovation project at Familjens Jurist, delivered with Yellow Elk as technical partner and part-funded by Vinnova, Sweden's innovation agency. A public service in live operation at Sweden's largest family law firm.[Read more about the project at Familjens Jurist →]

Lawyers and developers in the same team. The hub is led by Daniel Lönnberg, lawyer and former head of AI development at Familjens Jurist, together with Martin Wass, AI architect with a background in senior machine learning roles. They have worked with AI in legal practice since 2024.

We stand behind it in public. We speak about how firms stay in control while scaling with "AI — among others" at TechHeads in Kalmar with the talk "Don't outsource your brain — how law firms stay in control while scaling with AI", and at TechTorget in Copenhagen, the legal tech event organised by Djøf Advokat and Dansk Industri.
[Read more about TechTorget →]
[Read more about TechHeads →]

‍

Tools that were bought but never connected to the firm's own material. Uncertainty about what professional secrecy allows, so nothing gets done. Vendor contracts where it's unclear who owns the data and what happens if you want to switch. In-house teams choosing between ten tools with no way to compare them.

And most often: a firm that tried something, saw it work in the demo, and then found that nobody uses it. The tool didn't know the matters. Nobody had decided who owned the rollout. And a lawyer who can't check an answer won't trust it, which is entirely reasonable.

That's where we make the biggest difference, when AI becomes something lawyers can trust and use in their daily work.

Let's talk data.We'll help you find the right way forward, wherever you are today. Contact Daniel Lönnberg or Martin Wass