An anonymised Sydney legal-firm example
Legal Operations: AI-Assisted Email Processing for Law Firms
A bespoke email workflow helps a Sydney legal firm prepare grounded correspondence and support citation research, while attorneys remain responsible for reviewing work and deciding what is sent.
Reducing preparation work without removing professional judgement
This example describes an anonymous legal firm in Sydney. More than 20 staff members, including most attorneys and administrative assistants, use a workflow built by the BB team around the firm’s existing work.
It is not a standard BB email feature or an autonomous client-communication system. The bespoke Gmail email processor is externally hosted and sits outside Beyond Better. It is integrated with BB to prepare work for staff, not to replace legal review or send email to clients.
From incoming message to attorney-reviewed draft
The workflow gives staff a consistent starting point while keeping the legal decision, final drafting, and client communication with the firm.
1. Eligible messages enter a dedicated address
External inquiries and internal requests
The externally hosted processor handles eligible external incoming client messages and internal staff requests sent to a dedicated firm address. It does not send messages to clients.
2. Client and matter context is identified
A spreadsheet-managed CRM connection
A CRM managed in Google Sheets maps qualifying emails to the relevant client and matter. A client or matter ID determines whether the next project context can be prepared.
3. A per-client BB project is prepared
Context rooted in the client folder
For qualifying work, the ID triggers provisioning of a BB project using templates and Google Drive sources rooted to that client’s folder. This gives the drafting task defined client and matter context rather than a generic starting point.
4. Staff receive a draft to review
A document link, not an automatic send
BB prepares grounded draft correspondence as a Google Doc. Staff receive an email containing the document link. An attorney reviews, edits where needed, and decides whether and how any client communication is sent.
Research support alongside correspondence
The firm also uses a custom legal-database tool for citation research in defined workflows. Its purpose is to support the preparation process by locating relevant material for review; it does not determine legal conclusions.
Keeping the client or matter identifier, source folder, project, and resulting Google Doc connected gives staff a clear, traceable view of the work. This audit visibility helps reviewers understand what a draft relates to and where its project materials are held.
Review is a required part of the workflow
- • The processor handles only eligible messages sent to the dedicated firm address.
- • Correspondence is produced as a draft Google Doc for staff, not transmitted to the client.
- • Attorneys review the draft and retain responsibility for legal judgement and any final communication.
- • Citation-research output is reviewed in the context of the matter.
What the firm reports, and what it does not prove
5–10 minutes
reported preparation time for some defined correspondence and citation workflows
In anecdotal follow-up reports, staff said preparation that often took 60–90 minutes could take 5–10 minutes when this workflow was appropriate. These are informal reports from a specific firm and workflow, not independently verified measurements or a universal result.
Matter complexity, source quality, review requirements, and professional judgement can all change the time required. The process is designed to give people a better prepared starting point, not to eliminate review.
Need a workflow shaped around your practice?
The BB team can discuss tailored development for specific operational requirements, including workflows designed around Beyond Better.