For law and accounting practices.

The problem in this trade

The file is the work. A case arrives with years of correspondence, drafts that look alike, an engagement letter somewhere, invoices that belong to phases, and a client who remembers an assurance that may or may not be in writing. Reading it all is billable only in theory; in practice it happens at the end of the day, by the person who can least afford it.

What the colleague does with it

• The whole matter, in order. Every document and message in a case, dated, across the archives the matter touches.
• The wording that governs, quoted. Which version of a clause is the operative one and what it actually says, verified word for word against the source before you see it.
• Gaps stated as gaps. No signed engagement letter, no written confirmation of an oral assurance, a missing appendix: named from the register of what was read.
• A defensible trail. Every statement carries a link to the original, so the reasoning can be checked by someone who was not in the room.

Confidentiality and the boundary

Documents are processed in Europe under a data-processing agreement with Axon Trade ApS, and the supervisor that improves the colleague overnight sees no document and no name. Only the archives you put in scope are read, and nothing is read before you have agreed in writing.

The colleague never judges people and never advises. It lays out what the documents say and what they do not. The professional judgement stays where it belongs, and so does the responsibility.

How it would start with you

One closed matter you know inside out, read from your own archive, so you can hold the result against what you already know. A small first contract, and you keep the converted archive whatever you decide afterwards: a checked, machine-readable form of your own files that any AI you adopt in the coming years will need anyway, and that nobody escapes building eventually.

Frida is in preparation, with the first client engagement being prepared now.