Case studies — Smarterapps Ai
Legal AI automation
How an Australian law firm can take instructions once, build a chronology the lawyer can check, and draft from the firm’s own precedents — with a solicitor still signing every piece of work.
The situation
What was getting in the way.
An Australian law firm took instructions by email, then again in a form, then again in the first conference. Juniors built chronologies by reading the same bundle late at night. Precedents lived in a folder whose latest version depended on who you asked.
Partners would consider an assistant. They would not consider one that browsed the web for the law, or filed a document without a solicitor. The work they wanted automated was intake, sorting and first drafts from their own precedents.
This anonymised use case is a composite of the legal work Smarterapps Ai designs. It is not a named firm and it does not claim a billing result.
Read the matching industry page on Legal and professional services AI, or talk to us via contact or chat.
What we would build
The app, the assistant and the automation.
Each part is scoped so a person keeps the decision that matters. This is the shape of the engagement, not a claim that every module ships on day one.
01 — Intake
Client intake
A secure path that collects the facts and documents your matter opening already asks for, and creates the matter only when required fields exist.
02 — Bundle
Chronology from documents
Dates, parties and exhibits proposed from the bundle, each tied back to the source page for a lawyer to accept or correct.
03 — Drafts
Precedent drafting
Drafts assembled from the firm’s own precedents and the matter facts, marked as draft, never filed by the system.
04 — Dates
Deadline workflow
Tasks from the dates the matter actually contains, assigned to the people your practice already names.
05 — Clients
Client portal
Status, requests and documents in one place, so the file is not reconstructed from an email chain.
06 — Practice
Practice system integration
Matters and documents stay in the practice management system you run.
How it runs
From the first request to the system of record.
The automation prepares work. It does not take the action your organisation reserves for a person.
Step 01
Instructions arrive once
The client completes the intake the firm designed. Conflict checks and matter opening stay with the people who own them.
Step 02
The bundle is navigable
A chronology proposes events with page references. The lawyer corrects it. The corrected version is the one the matter uses.
Step 03
Drafts start from the precedent
The assistant uses the firm’s current precedent and the accepted facts. A solicitor edits and approves. Nothing is served or filed by automation.
Step 04
Dates have an owner
Deadlines extracted from the matter become tasks. The assistant does not diary over a solicitor.
Outcomes
What this pattern is built to change.
Matters that open complete. The intake matches the firm’s opening checklist, not a free-text email.
Chronologies you can audit. Every proposed event points at a page. Lawyers accept or fix them.
Drafts in the firm’s voice. Precedents are the firm’s, and a solicitor still signs the work.
Clients who can see status. Updates live on the matter, which cuts the just-checking email.
Controls
What the automation is not allowed to do.
Matter data is restricted to the team on the file. The assistant does not search the open web for legal answers in this pattern. It does not provide legal advice to the client. Filing, service and trust transactions require a solicitor. Privilege handling follows the firm’s instructions.
Smarterapps Ai builds the software and the operating guardrails with you. We do not invent a compliance position for your sector. The person you already hold accountable — clinician, adviser, officer, supervisor — still makes that decision.
This page is an anonymised composite use case. It uses a realistic Australian scenario. It is not a published result for a named organisation.
Keep going
Industry page, services and chat.
The industry page covers how we build. This page covers one operating pattern.
Related: Services · AI developers · Workflow automation · AI agents · Document AI · AI customer chat · Contact · All case studies →
You can also open the chat on this page and describe the workflow. A person follows up from there.
01 — Use case
How an Australian mining contractor can capture hazards and pre-starts in the field, summarise a shift from what was actually logged, and raise maintenance while the.
02 — Use case
How an Australian producer can record spray, harvest and labour once, give a buyer the quality documents they keep asking for, and stop the season living in a ute.
03 — Use case
How an Australian energy business can give crews the job on a device, tell customers what is actually known about an outage, and keep switching and safety with the.
FAQs
Questions we expect on the first call.
Does this give clients legal advice?
No. Client-facing flows collect instructions and show status. Advice and documents are prepared for a solicitor to approve.
Whose precedents does it use?
Yours. Drafting is grounded in the precedent set you nominate, not a generic internet form.
Can it file documents?
No. Filing and service stay with your solicitors. The system stops at a draft and a task.
Where next?
Intake or chronologies first, for one matter type. Contact or chat and we will use your current precedent, not a blank page.
Start with one workflow
Start from your precedents, not a blank page.
We will take one matter type, your opening checklist and your current precedent, and keep a solicitor on every output. Or open the chat on this page.