What I actually do
I build the systems that sit underneath legal work: document workflows, correspondence automation, mandate-tracking applications, contract-review pipelines, and the reference material that makes any of that safer. The work draws on legal training and four years of practice background, but it is engineering and operations work - building the tools, not giving the advice.
Two ventures sit at the centre of that work right now. The first is LexFlow Legal, where the production system is a legal-correspondence automation platform covering core document types - opinions, advice notes, demand letters, internal memos - with enforced firm voice, automatic application of standing legal directives, and cross-document referencing. The second is LeXCapital Advisory, where I designed and shipped the internal mandate-tracking application, the document infrastructure (engagement letters, mandate confirmations, deal-control documents, master services agreements, milestone sign-off protocols, tiered non-disclosure suites), and the advisory response shape.
How I think about legal AI
The useful layer in legal AI work is not the prompt. It is the reference material, the validation gates, and the feedback loop from a human reviewer who is the one accountable for what gets sent out. The model is a draftsman with no sense of consequence. The reviewer has the consequence. The system exists to make the reviewer's job clearer, faster, and better evidenced - not to step in front of it.
The harder problem, and the one I find genuinely interesting, is evaluation. Whether reviewer edits go down over time. Whether issue-spotting actually improves across document types. Whether the finality gate catches the same problems a senior reviewer would. That is a measurement question, not a prompt-engineering question, and it is what I'm working on next.
What I will take on
Remote and contract work in legal operations, AI legal-tech evaluation, contract automation, legal knowledge engineering, and customer-facing roles at legal-tech vendors. Full-time work where the proposition materially exceeds my current trajectory. I am not pursuing roles that require admission to practise law in jurisdictions where I am not yet admitted.
On disclosure
Everything here is written for public review. The diagrams are synthetic; the specimens are bracketed placeholders; the examples are framed at a level that lets you evaluate the work without exposing any client matter.
Contact
For a current CV or a walkthrough of any case study, email [email protected], call or message on +94 76 757 4677, or connect on LinkedIn.