Do I need any prior AI experience to join?

None. We start from where you actually are. Whether you have never opened ChatGPT or you use it daily but feel like you are only scratching the surface, this programme meets you there.

AI tools hallucinate and make mistakes. How can I trust them professionally?

You remain the professional. AI expands your capacity. This programme focuses heavily on how to use AI as an assistant, not an authority, including how to verify outputs and maintain appropriate oversight.

Will this conflict with my firm's AI policy?

We cover how to work within different governance frameworks, assess existing policies, and use AI in ways that are compliant, responsible, and defensible. If your firm lacks an AI policy, this programme equips you to help build one.

Do I need to be technical to benefit from this?

Not at all. This programme is built for legal professionals, not technologists. No coding, no machine learning theory. Just practical fluency in the tools and judgment relevant to legal practice.

We already use Harvey.ai or a similar tool. Isn't that already enough?

A platform is one component of a system, not the whole thing. Tools like Harvey are genuinely capable, which is exactly why firms start outsourcing more than drafting to them. We build the part the platform cannot: the verification habits and firm-wide workflow that decide when to trust the output and who is accountable either way.

What is the return on investment for a law firm?

Legal AI ROI is well-documented. Firms report contract review times reduced by up to 90%, research compressed from hours to minutes, and measurable reductions in write-off rates. A senior associate recovering two hours per day represents significant recoverable fee income annually.

Will AI make legal professionals redundant?

Not those who adapt their identity, not just their tools. Roles defined entirely by document production or templated analysis face real risk. But AI cannot exercise professional judgment, take accountability, or build the trust that client relationships require. The legal professionals who lead will be those who shift from producing the work to directing, reviewing, and standing behind it.

01 AI for Legal Professionals

AI drafts contracts fast and sometimes cites cases that do not exist. The risk is not speed. It is what you do not catch.

A verified answer to the wrong question is still wrong. We train the thinking that comes first, framing the issue and structuring the analysis the way senior counsel does, before any drafting starts. Then we build the verification system that catches what fluency hides.

Request a Consultation

Book a Discovery Call

For Corporate Teams For Legal Professionals

What We See Inside Most Practices

Drafting before framing the issue

Most people prompt AI to draft before they have pinned down what the actual legal question is. Senior counsel frames the issue, the parties, and the risk first. Skip that step and a fluent draft just answers the wrong question faster.

Fabricated case law and citations

AI tools generate citations that read correctly and reference cases that do not exist, or misstate what a real case actually held. Without a citation verification step, this reaches a filing before anyone catches it.

Contract review bottlenecks

Manual review processes that take days or weeks, increasing risk of missed clauses and human error.

Outsourcing judgment, not just drafting

Tools like Harvey.ai are genuinely good at producing output that reads like a lawyer wrote it. That is exactly the problem: fluency gets mistaken for verification, and the checking quietly stops happening.

A tool standing in for a system

Buying a platform is not the same as building a workflow. Most firms bend their practice around whatever the tool does well, instead of designing the workflow around how they actually review, draft, and decide.

Compliance complexity

Regulatory landscapes change constantly. Without a structured approach, AI-powered monitoring becomes another thing to manage rather than something that frees you up.

Knowledge management

Institutional knowledge trapped in partner's heads or buried in file systems, inaccessible when needed most.

What Changes When Both Tracks Are Built

Not projections. Outcomes reported by firms that trained professional judgment and built a workflow around it, instead of adopting a tool and hoping.

90%

Reported reduction in contract review time when firms adopt a workflow built for how they actually practice.

Luminance case studies

2 hrs/day

Recovered per senior associate, compounding into significant recoverable fee income each year.

2 tracks

Professional judgment and the workflow built around it. Skip either one and the other has nothing to stand on.

How we work with you

01 First, Ask Like Senior Counsel

02 Then We Build the Verification System Around It

First, Ask Like Senior Counsel

Before any tool gets involved, we train how the best firms actually approach a matter: the question that exposes the risk instead of the one that confirms what you already assumed. Most AI-assisted drafting fails here, long before the drafting itself.

Then We Build the Verification System Around It

Once the question is framed correctly, we build the checkpoint that catches what fabricated citations and misstated case law look like before they leave your practice. What that checkpoint actually involves is the part we walk through in a call, not on a page.

Service Formats

Diagnosis

1-2 weeks

We audit how citations and AI-drafted clauses actually get checked today, where the gap sits between what your practice assumes is verified and what is verified. No tool gets recommended before this.

€495-€1,995

Scope, team size, and duration

Team Training Program

Customized

Two tracks, hands-on, built around your practice area: how to frame a legal question before any drafting starts, and how to spot what AI gets wrong before it leaves the building.

€495-€1,995

Scope, team size, and duration

Strategic Advisory

Ongoing

Regular sessions to keep the system current as tools, case law, and bar guidance on AI use evolve.

€495-€1,995

Scope, team size, and duration

Background & Credentials

Laura Tomas Jimenez brings a unique perspective: deep corporate experience combined with hands-on AI expertise. Having navigated the corporate world herself, she understands the professional standards, risk tolerance, and strategic thinking that legal practice demands.

Who This Is For

Law firms looking to modernize workflows without compromising quality
In-house legal teams seeking efficiency gains and strategic AI adoption
Professional services firms preparing for AI-driven market shifts
Individual legal professionals who want to future-proof their careers

01 in practice

What working together might look like

Every engagement starts from your situation, not a standard package.

Your leadership curriculum was designed for decisions leaders no longer make.

L&D

We help you redesign it around the ones they do now.

Practice groups are moving on AI independently. No shared direction, no shared language.

Strategy

We build the layer before the gaps become expensive.

You want to build internal AI capability but don't know where the real gaps are.

Talent

We map it before we prescribe anything.

You need to move 200 people without losing those ahead or leaving behind those furthest back.

Large-scale

We design from both ends.

Frequently Asked Questions

None. We start from where you actually are, not where we assume you should be. If you have never opened ChatGPT, that is fine. If you have been using it but feel like you are only scratching the surface, that is also exactly where this programme takes you deeper.

Used correctly, yes. Used incorrectly, the risk is real. That is precisely why this programme separates the two tracks: the professional judgment to know when output needs scrutiny, and the workflow that builds verification in rather than leaving it to chance. The EU AI Act classifies several workplace AI uses as high-risk, with compliance requirements already in effect from 2025. Understanding the regulatory landscape is part of competent practice, not a separate concern.

A platform is not a system, it is one component of one. Harvey, Luminance, and similar tools are genuinely capable, and that capability is exactly why firms start outsourcing more than drafting to them: the sense-check that used to happen by default starts happening less, because the output already sounds right. What we build is the part the platform cannot: the verification habits and workflow that decide when to trust it, when to slow down, and who is accountable for the answer either way.

Not the ones who adapt their identity, not just their tools. The roles most at risk are those defined entirely by information retrieval, document production, or templated analysis, work that AI can now do faster and cheaper. That is real, and dismissing it is not useful. But here is what AI cannot do: exercise professional judgment. Take accountability. Navigate ambiguity in novel situations. Build the trust that a long-term client relationship requires. The legal professionals who will lead are the ones who train that judgment deliberately and build the workflow that puts it to use, rather than hoping it survives on its own.

Not sure if this is the right programme for you?

Start with a free 30-minute strategy session. We will look at where you are, where you want to go, and whether, or how, we can help.

Curious what this tends to look like in practice?

In Practice

Ready to Lead the Shift?

Adopting a tool gets you faster drafts. Training judgment and building the workflow around it gets you a practice that actually holds up under scrutiny. The firms that thrive are doing both.