How I Built Terms.Law's Free AI Legal Analyst

A small-business owner often has to decide whether to seek legal help before understanding the problem. A customer stops paying, a vendor presents a one-sided agreement, or a competitor sends a threatening letter. Is the issue serious? What evidence matters? Is there a deadline? Is a paid attorney service warranted? Those questions often arise before a written inquiry reaches a lawyer.

The barrier is not price alone. It is uncertainty about what action, if any, makes sense. A visitor may not know whether the issue warrants a Written Attorney Consultation, Contract Review / Redline, a Demand Package, or no paid legal service. That uncertainty can delay an inquiry and the collection of relevant documents.

A conventional law-firm website presents practice-area pages, articles, and a contact form. A visitor reads what is available and then sends an inquiry describing the issue. The lawyer must obtain enough information to assess conflicts, identify the requested work, and determine whether a defined engagement is appropriate.

That flow asks the visitor to commit before they have learned anything. It gives them no read on their own problem. It collects a lead but delivers no value back, so the visitor who was unsure stays unsure, and the visitor who was ready loses momentum waiting. The form is a gate, not a service.

I changed the sequence on the public website. Instead of directing every visitor immediately to a service inquiry, the AI Legal Analyst offers preliminary issue spotting, evidence questions, and relevant public resources. A visitor who wants attorney services can proceed separately to written intake and a defined engagement process.

What the AI does, in plain terms:

• Issue spotting. It reads the situation and names the likely legal issues, so the owner stops guessing what kind of problem this is.
• Evidence checklist. It tells the owner what documents and facts matter, so they start gathering the right things instead of the wrong ones.
• Leverage analysis. It gives a preliminary read on how strong the position looks and where the pressure points are.
• Service-path recommendation. It maps the problem to a fixed-fee step, or tells the owner it may not be worth pursuing.
• Document upload. The owner can drop in the contract, the invoice, or the letter they received, and the analysis works from the actual paper.
• Fixed-fee package routing. When the matter is real, it routes to a defined flat-fee deliverable instead of an open-ended "contact me."

An AI tool on a lawyer's site raises real professional-responsibility questions, and I built the safeguards in from the start rather than bolting them on.

• Lawyer-curated instructions. I developed and curated the tool's instructions around recurring business-law subjects and the public resources on Terms.Law. The objective is useful preliminary information rather than a generic contact-form conversation.
• Clear limitations. The tool identifies its output as preliminary information, not legal advice. Its public explanations distinguish an automated response from a written attorney engagement.
• Separate engagement requirements. Using the public tool does not create an attorney-client relationship. Paid services require conflict clearance, agreement on the scope and fee, and acceptance of a written engagement.

This case study describes a public legal-technology implementation. The relevant evidence is what a visitor can see and use: a free AI Legal Analyst, preliminary issue spotting, evidence checklists, website context, and links to relevant resources. I am not presenting this as a study of client outcomes, delivery times, or financial performance.

The public tool lets a visitor describe a business problem, explore possible legal issues, identify relevant documents, and find related information on Terms.Law. The website also provides a separate route to inquire about defined attorney services. These are features of the public implementation, not measurements of changes in legal outcomes or attorney productivity.

Is the AI Legal Analyst a substitute for an attorney?
No. The AI Legal Analyst is a free, lawyer-curated public information tool. It provides preliminary issue spotting and checklists, not legal advice. Using it does not create an attorney-client relationship or substitute for a separate written engagement.

Is what the AI Legal Analyst says legal advice?
No. The tool provides automated preliminary information to help visitors identify issues and relevant documents. It is not legal advice. Paid attorney services require conflict clearance and acceptance of a written engagement.

Can I use the tool for free?
Yes. The public AI Legal Analyst is free. Paid services are separate. The Written Attorney Consultation starts at $300 and is credited in full toward any package of $1,500 or more within 30 days. Contract Review / Redline starts at $1,000, and the Demand Package starts at $2,500. Fees and scope are confirmed in a written engagement following conflict and scope review.

Does using the AI Legal Analyst start an attorney-client relationship?
No. Using the public tool does not engage me for legal services. A paid engagement requires conflict clearance, agreement on the scope and fee, and acceptance of a written engagement.

How do I request attorney services?
Submit a written intake describing the issue and the requested service. I will consider conflicts and scope and, if the matter is accepted, provide a written engagement with the starting fixed fee and defined scope. The free public tool is optional.