Composite case study

How a 15-lawyer firm doubled contract throughput.

A 15-lawyer commercial firm specializing in M&A, commercial contracts, and corporate work. Junior associates were drowning in first-draft contract work, and senior partners were the bottleneck on review. After a Treetop Implementation engagement focused on the contracts practice, throughput doubled without a quality drop. Here is what happened.

2.1x
contracts processed per attorney per week, with senior review time unchanged

Composite case study: a synthesis of patterns we have seen repeatedly across similar engagements. Specific names, numbers, and details are illustrative; the patterns and outcomes reflect real client results.

The starting situation

Before

Firm: 15 attorneys total — 4 partners, 6 senior associates, 5 junior associates. Heavy commercial-contracts practice.

Volume: ~25 substantive contracts per week across the firm. Master agreements, SOWs, NDAs, employment agreements.

Pain: Junior associate first-draft time: 4-6 hours per contract. Partners reviewing 8+ first-drafts daily. Turnaround to clients averaging 6-8 business days.

Existing AI usage: None. Firm leadership cautious about confidentiality and accuracy.

The intervention

What Treetop built

Week 1: Confidentiality review and selection of an enterprise Claude deployment with no training on inputs. Engagement letters updated to disclose AI-assisted drafting.

Week 2: Built a Contract Drafting Project loaded with: the firm's 50 most-used clauses, common deal terms by type, partner-preferred phrasing, jurisdictional reference.

Week 3: Built a Contract Review Project that flags departures from firm playbook in counterparty drafts. Trained on 100 marked-up past contracts.

Week 4: Trained all 11 associates on the workflow. Built quality checkpoints — Claude drafts always reviewed by attorney before sending.

What changed

The new workflow

Old workflow: Partner intake → junior associate first draft (4-6 hrs) → senior associate review (1 hr) → partner review (45 min) → client. 5-7 day cycle.

New workflow: Partner intake → junior uses Drafting Project for first draft (45 min) → junior reviews (1 hr) → senior review (45 min) → partner review (30 min) → client. 2-3 day cycle.

Quality: Quality measured by partner-required revisions and client revision requests. Both held steady. Junior associates reported feeling more confident — Claude raised their floor.

Review practice: Counterparty drafts now reviewed by Claude first, then attorney. Catches more deviations from firm playbook than human review alone.

The lasting changes

6 months later

Throughput: Contracts processed per associate per week roughly doubled. Same headcount.

Realization rate: Realization rate climbed 11% as fewer hours got written off on basic drafting.

Associate development: Junior associates reported faster skill development — they could see partner-quality drafts immediately, then learn to identify what made them good.

Investment: $8,500 Implementation + $700/month Claude Enterprise for 15 seats + $200/month confidentiality tooling. Total first-year cost: ~$19,000. Estimated value: $400,000+ in additional billable capacity.

Related

Related case studies & reading

Want similar outcomes for your business?
Start with the $1,500 AI Audit. Written roadmap, no commitment to longer engagement.
Book the AI Audit → Take the Gap Assessment