Use case · Legal
AI workspace for legal teams and law firms
Legal work runs on accumulated client and matter knowledge. When that knowledge sits in personal AI tabs, the firm loses continuity, oversight and a clean answer to what AI cost on an engagement.
7 days free · No credit card required
Cost comparison
What a 20-person legal team often spends before centralizing
Law firms rarely buy identical seats for everyone. Partners, associates and knowledge teams mix tools, while finance sees reimbursements instead of matter-level usage.
Typical setup
Scattered legal AI seats
~$420/month in fixed seats
- 8 × ChatGPT Plus for associates and research → $160/month
- 6 × Claude Pro for longer drafting and analysis → $120/month
- 3 people reimbursed for overlapping tools → ~$80/month
- Knowledge or BD staff with lightly used seats → ~$60/month
- No matter-level attribution for any of it
With Intrascope
Intrascope Business + matter usage
~$99 workspace + ~$70 usage ≈ $169/month
- $99/month covers up to 25 users across practice groups
- ~7M tokens/month across research, drafting and summaries
- Matter projects keep client work separated
- Manifests encode firm drafting standards once
- Usage by project supports matter economics conversations
Typical legal team usage profile
Legal usage spikes around filings, diligence and deal pushes, then flattens. A blended average often lands around 6-9M tokens/month for a 20-person team.
Heavy users (6)
~900k tokens each: research and drafting leads
Regular users (8)
~300k tokens each: associates and counsel
Light users (6)
<40k tokens for partners reviewing summaries
Blended model split
45% Claude · 40% ChatGPT 5.5 · 15% faster models
Models legal teams route by task
- Claude for long-context research memos and issue analysis
- ChatGPT 5.5 for drafting variants, summaries and correspondence
- Faster models for internal notes and meeting cleanup
Common problems
What breaks when legal rely on personal AI accounts
- Matter context lives in a partner's or associate's personal chat history.
- Teams mix free consumer tools with client-sensitive prompts and no audit trail.
- There is no reliable way to attribute AI cost to a matter or practice group.
- Junior lawyers rebuild the same briefing prompts instead of reusing firm standards.
How Intrascope helps
Built for how legal actually use AI
- Create a project per matter or client with access limited to the matter team.
- Keep firm style, citation preferences and matter constraints in shared manifests.
- Route research-heavy work to stronger models and drafting to faster models in one workspace.
- Review usage by matter before the next fee conversation or budget review.
Knowledge ownership
Matter knowledge should stay with the firm
Issue lists, defined terms, and preferred drafting patterns are firm assets. Intrascope keeps them in matter projects and manifests so the next associate inherits context instead of starting from an empty personal chat.
A partner who only asks for a two-paragraph status summary should not need the same personal subscription as an associate running diligence synthesis all week. Intrascope separates workspace access from model consumption.
Explore more use cases: Startups · Sales-SEO agencies · Marketing teams