What changes once an advocate is working with LexPK
Every step below is work advocates already do — LexPK does not replace the judgment, it removes the time spent getting to the point where judgment is needed.
| Step | The old way | The LexPK way |
|---|---|---|
| Legal research | Comb through law books, journals, and PLD volumes for a single citation | Ask in plain English or Urdu, get a cited answer in seconds |
| Finding relevant case law | Search reporter indices by hand, hoping the right judgment is filed under the right heading | Retrieval pulls from 100,000+ indexed judgments, ranked by relevance to the actual question |
| Verifying a citation is real | Trust memory, or a colleague's — no fast way to double-check | Every citation is checked against the corpus before it is shown, not just generated from memory |
| Drafting a contract or notice | Start from an old precedent file, adapt clause by clause | A first draft from a plain description — still reviewed and finalized by the advocate |
| Reviewing a contract for risk | Read every clause manually against whatever checklist is remembered | Playbooks flags clauses against a rule set automatically — the judgment on what to do stays with the advocate |
| Staying current on new judgments | Subscribe to a journal, wait for the next issue, or hear it from a colleague | Supreme Court and High Court judgments are added from the courts' own websites, a batch at a time |
Every seat carries Pro, in full
A firm subscription is not a stripped-down shared login. Each advocate you add gets their own account with the complete Pro allowance — their own research, their own drafts, their own document reviews, counted against their own seat and nobody else's.
| What a seat includes | Per advocate |
|---|---|
| Retrieval-grounded research questionsEnglish, Urdu and Roman Urdu | 60 / day |
| Court-ready draftsPlaints, notices, applications, agreements | 30 / month |
| Document reviewsClause audit, or a playbook run against a saved checklist | 60 / month |
| Tabular Review rowsOne row is one judgment read against every column | 300 / month |
One price per seat
What a firm subscription adds
One invoice
One payment for the firm each month, not three or eleven personal cards to reconcile and chase.
Seat management
Add an associate by email address and their seat activates the next time they sign in. Revoke it the day they leave.
An owner's view
Seats bought, seats in use, and who holds them — in the firm dashboard rather than in somebody's head.
The firm's marketplace listing, bundled
A verified listing normally runs PKR 6,000 a month. It is included with a firm subscription.
What changes at the firm level, not just per advocate
The table above is what changes for one advocate doing their own work. This is what changes for the firm running several of them.
| At the firm level | Without LexPK | With a firm subscription |
|---|---|---|
| Onboarding a new associate | Weeks of shadowing partners to build research instincts and learn where things are | Grounded research from day one, drawing on the same corpus every advocate at the firm uses |
| Consistency across the firm | Research quality depends on which associate or partner happened to handle it | Every seat draws from the same indexed corpus and the same citation-checking, not individual habits |
| Supervising junior work | A partner re-checks every citation a junior brings back before it goes anywhere | Citations are already resolved against the corpus before they reach anyone's desk |
| Paying for it | Either no shared legal-research subscription, or reconciling several individual ones | One invoice for the whole firm, seats added or dropped as headcount changes |
| Scaling with headcount | A fixed law-library subscription that costs the same whether the firm has 3 advocates or 30 | Add a seat the day someone joins, revoke it the day they leave |
| Pitching the firm to a client | Experience and reputation, stated on their own | Experience backed by AI-augmented turnaround the client can actually feel in response times |
Per seat, not pooled — and that is deliberate
A pooled allowance sounds more generous and behaves worse. Work is not shared out evenly across a firm: one partner preparing for a hearing can exhaust a month's pooled research in an afternoon, and the associates who find out are the ones who needed it on the twenty-eighth. A seat is yours. Nobody else's week can spend it.
A seat is tied to the verified email address on the advocate's own LexPK account, so a firm cannot be billed for a seat nobody holds, and an invitation cannot be redirected to an address the firm did not name.
The honest limits
A firm deciding what to put in front of its advocates deserves the boundaries stated as plainly as the features.
- Seats do not share work. Each advocate's research, drafts and reviews are their own. A shared firm workspace is not part of this.
- No single sign-on. Each advocate signs in with their own LexPK account. There is no SAML or directory sync.
- An owner cannot read a seat-holder's work. The dashboard shows who holds a seat, not what they asked. That is a privacy decision, not a missing feature.
- It is a first pass, not advice. Everything LexPK produces is for an advocate to check and sign off. The professional judgment stays with the firm.