Ke Ma
COO & Co-Founder
Attorneys structure the argument, take the position, and identify the sources. Concorda does the rest.
The hardest part of litigation is the work only a lawyer can do. Building the theory of the case. Deciding which arguments to make and how to sequence them. Knowing the record well enough to know where you're strong and where you're exposed. That's what clients are paying for.
The problem is that most of a litigator's day isn't spent doing that. It's spent turning that thinking into documents. Writing the brief, conforming to local rules, matching citation formats, making sure the argument holds together across 40 pages. Important work, but not the work that requires a lawyer.
Concorda is built to handle that part, so attorneys can stay focused on the part that actually matters.
The Work Only a Lawyer Can Do
There are things no software should be trusted to do without a lawyer's direct input.
Deciding the theory of the case. Identifying which arguments to lead with and which to bury. Knowing that this particular judge in this jurisdiction is skeptical of certain framings. Choosing which sources to cite and what they actually stand for. These are judgment calls. They require experience, knowledge of the record, and accountability to the client. They cannot be automated, and no serious person is arguing they should be.
The ABA put it plainly in Formal Opinion 512: AI use in drafting is permitted, but attorneys must maintain competence and confidentiality obligations. The tool assists. The lawyer is responsible.
What this means in practice is that the attorney's job at the start of every matter is to provide the skeleton: the structure of the argument, the position the brief is taking, and the sources that support it. That's the intellectual work. That's what three years of law school and years of practice are actually for.
What Concorda Does With That
Once a lawyer has done that work, the rest is execution. And execution is where most of the time goes.
Drafting the sections. Making sure the argument flows. Conforming to local rules. Matching the firm's citation format. Checking that the structure holds together across 40 pages. This work doesn't require judgment. It requires thoroughness, consistency, and time, which is exactly what software is good at.
Concorda takes the attorney's inputs, including case facts, prior filings, the identified legal positions, and supporting sources, and produces a polished first draft that reads like your firm wrote it. Because in the ways that matter, it did.
A recent study out of the University of Minnesota found that AI tools boosted productivity on complex legal drafting tasks by 50 to 130 percent. The gains were largest not when AI was used to generate arguments from scratch, but when it was used to execute on arguments that had already been developed. The lawyer thinks. The software writes.
Why Generic Tools Don't Get You There
Most attorneys experimenting with legal AI today are using general-purpose tools like ChatGPT.
A general-purpose tool doesn't know your jurisdiction. It doesn't know your judge. It doesn't know that your firm never uses passive voice in argument sections or that you always lead the facts with the most sympathetic paragraph. It produces something that looks like a brief and reads like a brief but requires significant rework before it functions as one.
The attorney's job shouldn't be cleaning up someone else's draft. It should be reviewing their own work.
The Right Division of Labor
The attorneys on your team went to law school to argue cases, not to format documents. The work worth paying for, and worth doing, is the thinking: the structure, the position, the judgment about which sources move the needle.
Give Concorda that input. Get back the brief.
