Not scarcity marketing. There is one firm on this today and a second being onboarded, and the first thing every new firm finds is the thing nobody inside could see. Opening it faster than that would waste the most valuable feedback the product will ever get.
Your name, your firm, your bar number, what you practise, and the matter you would actually use it on. That last one is the useful part — it decides whether this is worth either of our time this quarter.
Not a sales engineer. Bring the objections; the unsettled parts of this are printed on these pages precisely so they can be argued about early.
Your firm, your cases, your people, your permissions. You invite your own associates and staff and set what each may do. Two-factor is required from the first sign-in, and nobody here can set or read your password.
The onboarding is built as a repeatable process rather than a favour done once — the whole chain is tested from an outside firm's own seat, and the parts that are still weak are named rather than smoothed over.
What can be said now: it will be a flat or per-seat fee, and it will not be priced off your recovery.
That is not a marketing position, it is Tex. Disciplinary R. 5.04. A licence priced against a lawyer's recovery is fee sharing with a non-lawyer wearing a subscription; a flat or per-seat fee is not. Which means the answer to “what does it cost” has to be worked out with the first few firms rather than announced at them, and the shape of it is already fixed by a rule neither of us can negotiate with.
Time on task, the model used and its version are recorded from the first day on every matter, so whatever the eventual price is, it will be argued from measurements rather than from a guess.
You, your co-counsel, a mediator, a judge and a trustee arrive through this site. A client arrives through their lawyer — which is your firm's website, with your name on it, not ours.
So the client login belongs on your page rather than on a vendor's, and this practice's own site is built exactly that way: one door, marked Client, and the four professional ones moved here. That page is the template.
Building it once is a project. Building it correctly — a login that fails closed, two-factor that cannot be skipped, a document a client may read and one they may not, a retention schedule that actually runs, and a content-security policy that does not quietly get switched off the first time something breaks — is a project a firm does once and then maintains forever with whoever is available. We will have done it many times over, and every fix any firm's page needs is a fix all of them get. That is not a claim about being cleverer than your IT people; it is a claim about repetition.
Hosted client-facing sites are an offering rather than a shipped product — there is one of them, it is this firm's, and it has not been stood up for anybody else. Said here rather than left to be discovered on the second call.
Outside Texas it is honest to say the case file, the party registry, the barrier, the communicator and the billing are jurisdiction-neutral, while the drafting catalogue's rule stack, deadlines and courts are Texas and the Northern District. Tell me your forum and I will tell you which half you would be using.
That one sentence is worth more than a demo, and it is the only thing asked for.