# Marcus Delgado, Firm Administrator at Reyes & Castillo Personal Injury — read of Law Firm AI, June 10 2026

> 14 years running operations at plaintiff-side PI shops, currently managing intake for 9 attorneys and a paralegal team of 4 in Phoenix. My commute is 38 minutes each way and I listen to legal tech podcasts until I want to throw my phone out the window.

## How I got here

I was Googling "automate legal intake conflicts check software" after a Thursday afternoon where we missed a soft conflict on a new PI intake and had to unwind two weeks of work. LinkedIn had been showing me something similar for maybe a week before that. A friend in my legal ops Slack dropped this link with a "have you seen this one?" and I figured fine, I'll give it three minutes.

## What I clicked first

The hero pulled me in with "Calls that come at 9pm get answered, conflicts checked, and retainers drafted while you sleep." That's real. That is the actual problem. We lose maybe 2-3 qualified leads a month because they called at 8:45pm, got voicemail, and signed with someone else by morning. So the premise landed.

Then I scrolled down and saw "47 hours/week saved" and "3.2x intake volume" and "$220K ARR increase" stacked in three boxes and my brain switched into a different mode entirely.

## Where I paused

The conflict check copy. "Zero false negatives. You still control the final decision." I stopped on "zero false negatives" for a long minute. That is a very hard claim in legal. False negatives on conflict checks are the kind of thing that gets bar complaints filed. I've worked with LexisNexis conflict tools that still require a human sign-off precisely because no automated system has ever credibly made that claim. Either they're defining "false negative" narrowly enough to make it technically defensible, or someone wrote that line without thinking through the liability implications. I genuinely want to know which.

## What I distrusted

Mostly the numbers, and then specifically this buried at the bottom: "we don't have live customers on this idea yet." That sentence hit like a bucket of cold water after three paragraphs of "$220K ARR increase" and "47 hours/week saved on average." Average of what? Whose firm? If there are no live customers, those aren't averages. They're projections dressed up as data. The page leads with stats that read like case studies and discloses the fiction in small print at the bottom of a section most people won't reach. That's a pattern I've seen a hundred times in legal tech and it always ends the same way.

The "1 in 8 meaningful-success odds (Fermi)" line also confused me. Is that a confidence rating on the product or on my business if I adopt it? I read it three times and I'm still not sure.

## What would convince me

One real firm, named, willing to get on a 20-minute call with me. Not a case study written by the vendor. An actual intake manager or office manager at a 5-15 attorney shop who ran this for 90 days and can tell me what broke, what they turned off, and whether their malpractice carrier had questions about the conflict check output. I don't need the $220K story. I need "here's what the first month actually looked like."

Also: what does the privilege flagging actually do? The copy says "AI flags privileged documents but never reads or stores their content" and I want to understand what that means technically, because those two claims feel like they're in tension with each other.

## What I'd ask in an email reply

1. The page says "zero false negatives" on conflict checks. Can you explain exactly what you mean by that and whether that claim has been reviewed by a legal malpractice attorney?

2. You've disclosed no live customers yet. What does "Start Free Trial" actually put me in? A waitlist? A beta? A working product? I need to know what I'm clicking into.

3. The $299/mo plan says "conflict check integration" but doesn't say integration with what. We're on Clio. Does this plug into Clio's conflict module, does it run parallel to it, or is it a standalone system I'd be running alongside?

## Verdict: on-the-fence

The problem they're solving is real and the copy shows they understand it at a level above most tools I've looked at. But the gap between the confident ROI language at the top and the "no live customers" disclosure at the bottom is a credibility problem they need to fix before I'd take the next step.

---
*Memo by skeptic persona, generated 2026-06-10. Studio breaks own self-grading loop.*