We are a Litify partner, a Filevine partner and a Salesforce partner, and we are not going to pretend the platforms are the enemy. For a lot of firms their own platform's AI is the right place to start. Point solutions are genuinely good at the one job they do. This page says what each option is actually for, including the two answers that are not us.
Litify and Filevine are our partners, and their own AI is genuinely the right place for a lot of firms to start. The point solutions are genuinely good at the one job they do. This is where each option stands for a twenty to two hundred seat plaintiff firm, including ours.
Scroll the table sideways to compare
| Option | Sees | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|
| Your case management platform's own AI | What the platform holds | Deepest inside the system of record, inherits the permissions you already built, and the fastest thing on this list to turn on. Scope is the platform, so email threads, meeting notes and documents that live outside it stay outside the answer. The right place to start |
| Point solutions for demand drafting and medical records | One job, very well | Purpose-built and often better than a general system at the single task they were built for. Each one is another login, another agreement, another security review and another copy of your clients' records with another vendor, and coverage usually stops where litigation begins. Deep on one job |
| Enterprise CRM AI add-ons | The CRM, with enterprise governance | Real governance depth and a support footprint no small vendor can match. Priced and scoped for organisations far larger than a two hundred seat firm: the base licence, the data layer, the integration middleware and the consumption all stack. Built for a bigger buyer |
| General purpose chat assistants | Whatever you paste in | Cheap, excellent, and already on your team's phones, which is the actual situation. No view of your case system, no firm audit trail, and nothing to show a bar authority about what was verified. No case context, no audit trail |
| Build it yourself | Whatever you build | Total control, and the models really are just an API. Twelve to eighteen months before the first useful screen, then the permission model, the audit log, the connector maintenance and the on-call are yours forever. You own the maintenance |
| Mayeshal | The whole case file | One layer on top of the system of record you already run. Reads every document page by page, cites the page, drafts from your own templates, and writes back only through an approval. Your database, your AI accounts, one audit log, a defined exit package. Fills the gap |
This is the fastest thing in the world to turn on, and for a firm whose work genuinely lives inside one platform it is often the whole answer. It inherits the permission model you already built, it needs no new vendor review, and there is nobody to integrate with because it is already there. The honest limit is scope rather than quality: it can reason about what the platform holds. The email thread where the adjuster conceded liability, the meeting where the client described the gap in treatment, the records that arrived as a photograph of a screen, all of that lives outside the platform, so it lives outside the answer. If most of your case actually is in the platform, start here and do not let anyone talk you out of it.
These are good products built by serious people, and on the single job they were built for they will often beat a general system. If your only problem is demand throughput, a demand tool solves your only problem. The cost shows up at the second and third purchase. Each one is a separate login, a separate agreement, a separate security review, and another copy of your clients' protected health information sitting with another vendor. None of them can see each other, so the work of stitching the pieces back into one coherent case keeps landing on your team. And coverage in this category almost always stops where litigation begins.
These are real, capable products with governance depth and a support footprint no small vendor can match. If you need a Fortune 100 escalation path and a global services bench, they exist and we do not. The mismatch is sizing rather than quality. The pricing model assumes a base licence, a data layer, integration middleware and consumption on top, and every one of those layers was designed for an organisation with more seats than a two hundred person law firm has people. A firm of your size typically ends up paying for the shape of a much larger buyer.
They are cheap, they are excellent, and your team is already using them, which is the actual situation rather than a hypothetical one. Surveys in 2026 put general-purpose AI use among individual legal professionals at around seven in ten while firm-level deployment of legal-specific tools sits around a third. That gap is not enthusiasm, it is a governance hole. A general assistant has no view of your case system, keeps no firm audit trail, and cannot show a bar authority what a lawyer verified. It is a fine place for a first draft of an internal memo. It is not a place for a client's medical records.
The models really are just an API, and a firm with a strong technology team can build something specific and good. What the API does not give you is the permission model, the audit log, the connector maintenance, the document pipeline, the cost controls and the on-call rota. That is twelve to eighteen months of work before the first useful screen, and then it is yours to keep running, forever, including the week the case system changes an endpoint. Some firms should absolutely do this. Most of the ones that start it end up staffing it.
One layer on top of the system of record you already run, reading the whole file rather than a slice of it, with your own database, your own AI accounts, one audit log and a defined exit package. The honest limits are on the next section, and they are real.
If your matters, your documents, your email and your notes are already inside your case management platform and nothing important happens outside it, then the whole premise of a cross-system layer is doing no work for you. Buy your platform's AI. It will be cheaper, faster to turn on, and you will not need us.
Micronetbd is one firm with one phone number. We answer it, and the people who answer it built the product, which is genuinely better for some things. It is not better if your requirement is a twenty-four hour follow-the-sun escalation desk in three regions. If that is a hard requirement, we are the wrong vendor and we will say so on the first call.
Four to twelve weeks is the honest range depending on how many systems have to be connected, and the published benchmark for a legal AI trial that tells you anything at all is eight weeks. If you need something running before a trial date next month, buy a point solution for that one job and come back to us for the platform question afterwards.
We have two vertical packs: plaintiff personal injury, live in production on Litify, and investment advisory, built and signed but not yet running for a client. Anything else means building the pack with you as the first customer. That can be a good deal for both of us, but it is a different conversation and a different price, and pretending otherwise would waste your quarter.
Thirty minutes, on a screen share, on a matter you pick. We connect nothing, install nothing and ask for no credentials to have that conversation. If it is not obviously useful in the first ten minutes, we will tell you so and you get your afternoon back.