AI Workflow Assessment
Before you spend another dollar on AI, find out where it actually belongs.
A practical two-week assessment for small law firms that want a clear roadmap, not another vendor demo.
You get a grounded review of your tools, workflows, bottlenecks, opportunities, and risk points. Then you get a written plan showing where AI can help first, and where it should stay out of the way.
Risk review is informed by Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1, the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, and OWASP LLM application risks.
Not ready for a paid assessment yet? Try the AI readiness self-check first.
For the introductory call, bring one recurring task you want assessed and the tools your team uses now.
15 minutes. I will tell you whether there is a fit. No deck.
The Point
Most AI projects start with the wrong question.
The wrong question is: What tools should we buy?
The better question is: Where does work repeatedly slow down, break down, get redone, create risk, or consume attorney attention that should be used somewhere else?
The Assessment is built to answer that question. It is not a software demo or a strategy memo. It is a practical review of your firm’s real tools, workflows, constraints, and professional obligations.
Best For
You know AI matters. You do not want to chase noise.
Maybe attorneys are already experimenting with ChatGPT. Maybe staff are using AI quietly. Maybe Microsoft Copilot, Gemini, or other AI tools are sitting inside software you already pay for. The 2-minute self-check is a free way to see where you stand first.
Or maybe the firm has done nothing because everyone is worried about confidentiality, accuracy, billing, supervision, and the small matter of not embarrassing the firm.
Good. That is a normal starting point.
The Assessment gives you a practical view of where AI can help your firm first, where it is not worth the effort, and what guardrails should exist before people start improvising.
What You Get
A usable roadmap. Not a theory packet.
60-minute working session
We talk through your practice areas, software, intake process, drafting work, client communication, staff bottlenecks, and current AI use.
Tool and workflow review
I review what you already use and where the firm is losing time, consistency, or follow-through.
Written assessment
You receive prioritized AI opportunities, suggested first projects, recommended tools, and risk notes.
Ethics pressure points
We flag where confidentiality, supervision, accuracy, billing, and client-trust issues may show up.
Prioritized next steps
You leave knowing what to do first, what to defer, and what to ignore entirely.
30-minute follow-up call
We walk through the assessment and decide whether implementation makes sense.
Deliverables
You receive a written roadmap, not a vague recommendation.
Workflow Map
How the work moves now, where it slows down, where handoffs fail, and where attorney review belongs.
Opportunity Ranking
Which workflows are realistic candidates for AI assistance, ranked by value, risk, and readiness.
Risk Register
Confidentiality, accuracy, supervision, billing, vendor, and data-handling issues that need guardrails.
Tool-Fit Review
A review of tools the firm already owns before anyone recommends another subscription.
Guardrail Plan
Plain-English controls for who may use AI, what information may enter tools, and what must be verified.
30-Day Action Plan
A realistic sequence for choosing one workflow, fixing inputs, testing prompts, training staff, and deciding what comes next.
Example
A workflow map makes the problem visible.
This example is illustrative, not a client result. It shows the level of specificity the assessment is designed to produce.
Sample Intake Workflow Finding
Current State
- Leads arrive by phone, web form, referral, and direct email.
- Facts are collected in different formats.
- Conflict checks happen inconsistently.
- Follow-up depends on memory, inbox flags, or individual staff habits.
- Lawyers reconstruct facts that staff already learned.
Recommended Future State
- One intake path for every lead source.
- Standard fields by matter type.
- Conflict check before substantive consultation.
- AI-assisted internal summary only after confidentiality rules are satisfied.
- Attorney review before advice, engagement, or decline decisions.
Prioritization
The answer is not simply “use AI.”
The assessment separates good first candidates from workflows that need cleanup before AI belongs anywhere near them.
Risk
Guardrails are part of the deliverable.
The assessment identifies practical risk points before implementation begins: client facts in consumer tools, AI-generated citations, unsupervised staff use, poorly permissioned folders, weak vendor terms, or missing client-disclosure standards. The ethics behind them are in the 25 AI ethics questions.
The goal is not to scare the firm. The goal is to make the risk visible, assign ownership, and decide which controls must exist before the workflow goes live.
For a deeper look at tool and vendor controls, see the Vendor AI & Data Governance Audit Playbook.
Common Outcomes
After the Assessment, the fog should lift.
- You know which workflows are worth fixing first.
- You know which AI tools already in the firm are worth using.
- You know which tasks should stay human-controlled.
- You know where confidentiality, supervision, billing, or accuracy risks may appear.
- You know what to do next without turning AI into a full-time hobby.
Investment
$995
Use this when the firm needs clarity before implementation.
This is the right starting point if you want a sober look before spending more money, changing systems, or letting random experimentation become firm policy.
15 minutes. I will tell you whether there is a fit. No deck.