01
Defined scope
the first case focuses on the point where the most time is being lost today
For document-heavy offices in Spain
AI workflow partner for law firms and notaries.
We help document-heavy teams reduce manual follow-up, put one bounded workflow into operation and keep client data inside Europe.
Defined scopeHuman reviewEU dataYou decide afterSpecific case
If we do not see a fit, we will say so before work starts.
02
Conditions in writing
scope, cost and success criteria are defined before work starts
03
Your actual team
the workflow is designed around the people, approvals and internal handoffs already holding the work together
What actually gets stuck
Invisible work also eats margin
The bottleneck is rarely the document. It sits in everything needed to keep the matter moving: requesting documents, chasing missing items, checking whether they arrived, locating versions, updating statuses, coordinating internal handoffs and answering follow-up queries. That work is almost never billed. But it interrupts the team, delays the next step and ends up consuming far more time than it seems to.
That is why we do not add an AI layer on top of the same bottleneck. We go to the point where the most time is being lost today and redesign it so the team reviews instead of chases.
What it actually costs
The expensive part is not the task. It is the chain of interruptions it creates.
A missing document is not just a missing document. It opens a chain of follow-up, checking, updating, status replies, internal handoffs and interruptions to other people on the team.
When that chain repeats across dozens of matters, operational friction stops being an annoyance and becomes a business problem:
- More unbillable hours
- Less capacity for higher-value work
- Slower response to clients
- More handoffs and more avoidable errors
- More senior time spent unblocking work that should never have reached them
It is not a volume problem. It is an invisible-work problem that compounds.
The numbers
The hours you lose.And the ones you can recover.
Today
700 hours
per year per lawyer lost to paperwork
MoreThanLaw
With a first case
30–50%
less time chasing paperwork
Today
Up to €6,000
in AEAT fines from manual errors
AEAT data
With a first case
Up to 80%
fewer errors preparing files
Today
240 hours
recoverable per year per professional
Thomson Reuters
With a first case
+15–20%
more billable capacity
Sources: MoreThanLaw (hours on paperwork), AEAT data (fines from manual errors), Thomson Reuters (hours recoverable). Indicative first-phase results based on common processes in firms with 5 to 50 employees. Specific targets are set in writing in each engagement agreement before work starts. See Terms of Service.
Before and after
How a workflow changes when that invisible work stops depending on manual follow-up.
Ask and chase
Before
Documents, signatures or clarifications are requested across scattered threads. Then someone has to chase replies, validations or third parties without a clear view of what is actually missing.
After
Less manual chasingRequests go out with more structure and follow-up can be sustained more consistently, so the team spends less time chasing and more time resolving exceptions.
Find and move
Before
The latest version, the right template or the right data gets searched for across email, folders, portals and spreadsheets. Then someone moves it again to where it is needed next.
After
Less operational frictionThe goal is to reduce unnecessary searching and transfers so information reaches the right place earlier and with less manual context rebuilding.
Update and coordinate
Before
Statuses, pending items, deadlines and next steps end up split across calendar, sheet, email and team memory.
After
More consistent follow-upThe system can flag milestones, missing items and next steps more consistently, so coordinating the matter depends less on manual reminders.
How to start
Three ways in, depending on where you are today.
ASSESS
You don't know where to start
We analyse the team’s real work with you, identify where the most time is being lost today and tell you which stretch is worth turning into a first case.
Outcome
A clear map of where the friction sits today and what deserves attention first.
ENABLE
You want the team to see it in practice
Sessions on real team tasks. No deployment, no commitments — just to see what changes in the work that eats the most time today.
Outcome
The team sees when AI is worth it and when it isn't, on their own work.
SHIP
You already know what needs unblocking
We take one concrete flow in your practice and put it live in 10 working days, with scope and conditions defined before we start.
Outcome
A working flow, your team reviewing instead of chasing and a report on the outcome.
What is true on every first case
The points a serious buyer usually wants nailed down before work starts
The first engagement covers one document workflow, with the limits agreed before build starts.
One workflow
Low-confidence cases and sensitive outputs route to review instead of passing straight through.
Human review
The first case runs in an isolated environment in the EU, with the DPA signed before live data enters the workflow.
EU
If the first case misses the written success criteria, there is no obligation to expand it.
You decide after
How risk is controlled
You can validate a first case without opening an uncontrolled project or gambling with sensitive data
All of this is documented and agreed before live data enters the system.
01
Scope and cost defined
The scope, cost and success criteria are agreed in writing before work starts. No surprises and no unilateral expansions.
02
One case only
The first engagement covers one specific workflow, with the limits agreed in writing.
03
Human review
Exceptions, low-confidence cases and sensitive outputs stay with a human reviewer.
04
Isolated EU environment
The first case runs in its own environment, deployed in the EU, with the DPA signed before live data.
05
GDPR and AI Act
Documentation, traceability and supervisory controls prepared for current regulation.
06
You decide after
If the first case does not justify the next step, there is no obligation to continue or expand.
Who you work with
The same team from start to finish
Gabriel Naranjo Lituma
Co-Founder, cloud architecture and compliance
Owns the deployment, the security model and the data-handling design. Certified across Azure, AWS and Google Cloud.
Ivor Padilla
Co-Founder, engineering and workflow delivery
Defines the workflow with you, builds the system and gets the first version into production. 17 years shipping production software.
Tell us where the work gets stuck today
We will see whether there is a first case worth doing.
Tell us where the workflow slows down today. We will tell you whether there is enough operational friction to start with a first case and which part should stay under review.
Prefer email? Request scope and conditions.