Talk to an Expert
Legal Tech AI Development

An MVP built for legal-grade accuracy — not a hackathon demo.

SoluLab is a legal tech AI MVP development company for founders building contract review, legal research, e-discovery, and compliance AI. We engineer for citation accuracy and hallucination control from day one — backed by a team that has shipped generative AI into regulated banking and clinical healthcare environments, where a wrong answer has real consequences.

★★★★★ Clutch 4.9/5 GoodFirms 4.9/5 (101 reviews) ISO 9001 SOC 2 CMMI L3
Illustrative screenshot · Prototype, self-built
ContractIQ — Clause Extractor (internal prototype)
CONTRACT_v2.pdf
§3.1 Confidentiality — Each party shall maintain the confidentiality of all disclosed information...
§4.2 Termination — Either party may terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the other party. §7.1 Indemnification — Each party shall indemnify and hold harmless the other from claims arising out of...
What's the termination notice period in this agreement?
The termination notice period is 30 days, per the clause highlighted at left.
Source: §4.2, p.3 98% grounded
[Dev note: this is a static mockup standing in for a product screenshot — no video asset exists yet. See Copy Deck production spec for the planned video that will eventually replace this.]
Who's building this

Built by operators who've sat on both sides of a high-stakes decision.

SoluLab was co-founded by a former Goldman Sachs Vice President and a former Citrix Principal Software Architect. That combination — capital-markets risk discipline paired with enterprise software architecture — is why "the model said so" is treated as an incomplete answer on every project.

RL

Rajat Lala

Co-Founder — Former VP, Goldman Sachs (NYC)

Managed front-office interest rate derivatives, where a modeling error carries immediate, measurable financial consequences. M.S. Computer Science, Georgia Tech.

CF

Co-Founder

Former Principal Software Architect, Citrix

Led enterprise mobile platforms used by millions of people daily — the enterprise-grade software architecture discipline SoluLab still builds on.

The real objection

The reason legal AI adoption stalled — and why 2026 is different.

Law firms didn't reject early AI tools out of caution alone — they rejected them because hallucination rates were genuinely too high for professional use. That history is exactly why "unauthorized practice of law" and "AI hallucination" are live search terms among legal AI buyers today, not hypothetical concerns.

What changed by 2026

Grounding techniques — retrieval-augmented generation over verified source documents, citation-level verification, and human-in-the-loop review gates — matured enough to bring hallucination rates down to production-viable levels for legal-grade use cases. Our entire build philosophy for legal AI is built around that shift.

→ Read our full Accuracy & Hallucination Control methodology
Proof, framed honestly

We've already built AI where being wrong isn't an option.

We haven't shipped a named legal AI platform yet — and we're not going to pretend otherwise here. What we have done is build generative AI inside two of the least forgiving environments for AI accuracy: regulated consumer banking and clinical healthcare decision support. The engineering discipline is the same one legal AI demands.

Regulated Banking

Generative AI Mobile Banking Platform — Aman Bank

AI-powered chatbots and voice assistants automating onboarding and customer support inside a compliance-bound financial environment.

40%
Faster support response times
60%
Reduction in onboarding time
50%
Lower human agent workload
30%
Increase in positive feedback
Clinical Healthcare

Generative AI Clinical Decision Support System

Multimodal reasoning (text + imaging) with graph-based logic to improve decision accuracy in symptom triage and patient education, under strict healthcare safety rules.

Published as an academic case study — Springer Nature

Same core discipline legal AI requires: constrained, grounded outputs; explicit accuracy/safety measurement; human oversight built into the workflow, not bolted on after a demo.

Where funding has concentrated

We build across all eight active legal AI sub-verticals.

$1.4B+ in contract automation funding (Ironclad, Sirion, Luminance, Spellbook, Ivo, Juro, and others) $700M+ in litigation/plaintiff-side AI (EvenUp, Eve, Supio, Darrow, and others)

Contract Review AI

Clause extraction and risk flagging, traceable to the exact source clause.

Legal Research Tools

Retrieval-augmented case law search that returns citations, not summaries.

Document Drafting AI

Drafting assistants grounded in firm precedent and playbooks.

E-Discovery AI

Large-scale review and classification built for defensibility.

Compliance AI

Regulatory monitoring grounded in the specific regulatory text.

Litigation Analytics

Case outcome analytics with confidence bands, not false certainty.

IP Workflow Tools

Prior-art analysis and portfolio workflows with source-linked outputs.

Legal Intake Automation

AI-assisted intake that flags conflicts before a human has to.

How we build

De-risking "how to build a legal AI platform," in five stages.

01
Technical & compliance discovery
Map data sources, document types, confidentiality needs, and the accuracy bar your use case requires.
02
Architecture & grounding design
Design retrieval and grounding before writing product code — indexing, citation tracking, confidence scoring, review gates.
03
MVP build
A scoped, working MVP on the single highest-value workflow, built to demo to design partners or investors.
04
Evaluation & hardening
Golden-dataset benchmarking, adversarial hallucination testing, and security review.
05
Launch & iterate
Production deployment with monitoring and an ongoing model-evaluation cadence.
Engineering depth

Technology stack

Retrieval & LLMs

LangChainLlamaIndexLangGraphPineconepgvector

Evaluation & Guardrails

Golden-dataset testingFaithfulness scoringRegression testing

Data, Cloud & Security

AWSAzureGCPVPC-isolatedSOC 2-aligned

Application & DevOps

ReactNode.jsPythonDockerKubernetes
Verified, not just claimed

Trust & credentials, embedded — not just linked out.

4.9/5
★★★★★
Clutch
Verified B2B reviews
4.9/5
★★★★★
GoodFirms
101 reviews · Trusted Choice Award
10+ yrs
★★★★★
ISO 9001 · SOC 2 · CMMI L3
Certified quality, security & process maturity
Co-founded by ex-Goldman Sachs VP · Co-founded by ex-Citrix Principal Architect · 250+ engineers · 1,500+ projects

[Dev note: render live Clutch & GoodFirms embeddable badge widgets here, not static images, so scores stay current.]

Objection handling

Frequently asked questions

How do you prevent AI hallucinations in legal outputs?
Every output is grounded in retrieval over your verified source documents — not open-web generation — and every claim is traced back to the exact paragraph it came from, with a confidence score attached. High-stakes outputs route through a human-in-the-loop review gate. Full methodology on our dedicated Accuracy & Hallucination Control page.
Who owns the IP and code?+
You do. Standard engagements transfer full IP ownership of the code, models, and fine-tuned artifacts to your company upon payment.
How do you handle privileged/confidential legal documents?+
Under NDA by default, with encryption at rest and in transit and SOC 2-aligned handling. VPC-isolated or on-prem deployment is available for strict data-residency requirements — documents never need to leave your controlled environment.
What's a realistic MVP timeline?+
Most single-workflow legal AI MVPs take 8–14 weeks from technical discovery to a demoable pilot. Multi-workflow platforms typically run longer — sized precisely during discovery.
Do we get a dedicated team or shared resources?+
Dedicated. Legal AI accuracy work depends on a team that understands your specific document types and grounding architecture — that context doesn't transfer well across a shared pool.
What does it cost to build a legal AI MVP?cost to build legal AI SaaS+
Legal tech MVP development cost depends heavily on scope. Rather than publish a number that doesn't reflect your document complexity and compliance requirements, we size an exact estimate during a technical discovery call.
Can SoluLab act as a fractional CTO for a legal tech startup?fractional CTO+
Yes — architecture decisions, vendor evaluation, hiring guidance, and investor-facing technical diligence, alongside or instead of a full build team.
Ready when you are

Talk to someone who understands why accuracy isn't optional here.

We'll talk through your use case, your accuracy and compliance requirements, and what a scoped MVP timeline and estimate actually look like — no generic AI-agency pitch.

Book a Technical Discovery Call
30-minute call with an engineer, not a salesperson · No obligation