Legal tech
Useful technology. Carefully reviewed legal output.
QA focused on what your legal tools produce: documents, clauses and legal conclusions. Examine the output against agreed requirements and relevant scenarios.
Discuss an assignmentWhen this helps
A product can function technically while still producing incomplete, inconsistent or unsuitable legal output. A focused review makes the expected result explicit and tests how the tool handles ordinary cases, variations and exceptions.
How we work
I assess the automated output from a manual lawyer’s perspective and compare it with a professional lawyer’s work. Findings are presented in a focused report similar to legal due diligence. I work with AI engineers, backend developers and frontend teams to improve the process and review the output again after changes.
Typical work
- Generated documents, clauses and legal conclusions
- Consistency, completeness and treatment of exceptions
- Legal logic, assumptions and output changes between versions
What you receive
- A defined review scope and representative test scenarios
- Prioritised findings with examples and suggested corrections
- A record of reviewed fixes and questions requiring further legal judgement
The documents and outputs are agreed for each assignment.
A few useful answers
What does your quality assurance of legal output focus on?
I review the legal result of an automated process, such as generated documents or AI assessments. The starting point is a manual lawyer’s perspective: how would a professional lawyer approach the task and what output would they produce?
How do you compare automated output with a lawyer’s work?
I examine the output against the manually produced result and the legal reasoning behind it. That comparison helps identify differences in interpretation, context, completeness and the way the automated process handles the task.
Can you review AI-generated legal assessments and interpretations?
Yes. My work includes reviewing weaknesses in AI assessments and in the interpretation of legal words and context. The findings can be used to refine the process and its expected output.
Can you help improve the legal logic behind an AI tool?
Yes. I can restructure legal text and rules into explicit logical expressions that are easier for an AI system to interpret. This work connects the legal analysis with the automated process and can be carried out alongside AI engineers and backend developers.
How will we receive your QA findings?
I present findings in a report similar to a legal due diligence report, narrowed to the area being assessed. The report sets out the issues identified in the legal output and gives the team a basis for working through improvements.
Can you review the output again after our team makes changes?
Yes. I can recheck revised outputs and work with AI engineers, backend developers and frontend teams. Feedback can cover the legal result, the automated process and how a lawyer would want to work with the product.
Can you review a tool developed by another team?
Yes. QA can be a separate assignment focused on the output of an existing tool. We agree the area to assess and the expected professional standard, with the aim of bringing the automated process closer to, or improving on, the manual result.
Related services
Legal tech product development
Develop tools around a real legal need and the people who will use them. Bring legal reasoning, product decisions and implementation into the same conversation.
Explore this serviceWorkflow analysis & improvement
Understand how legal work moves between people, information and decisions. Improve the process around the work, from intake to review and handover.
Explore this serviceAutomation opportunities
Identify where automation could reduce repetitive legal work and where human judgement remains important. Build a clear basis for deciding what is worth pursuing.
Explore this serviceUneek
What are you working on?
Tell us about your situation, your objective and the timing. We will start by defining the right scope.