FAQ
Questions managing partners ask before implementing Claude
Is Claude suitable for a firm of ten lawyers?
Yes, and that size is often easier than a larger firm: fewer people to train, shorter decisions, a managing partner who can see the whole firm. What matters is whether the firm can name two workflows, an owner for each and a review rule. Anthropic’s business plans start at two seats.
Do we need an IT department to implement Claude?
No. At this size the set-up is administrative more than technical: accounts, sign-on, permissions, folders and connections to systems you already run. Your IT provider handles those connections and your security settings, and I work alongside them. What you do need is a partner who owns the roll-out.
Which legal work should we automate first?
Work that is frequent, low-risk and has an owner: first drafts from a precedent, summaries of incoming documents, version comparisons, the recurring checks an administrator runs. Not your most sensitive matter, and not a workflow the firm has never agreed among itself. “Automate” is the wrong word for most of it: the tool prepares, a lawyer decides.
How is confidential client information handled?
In two layers. The provider’s: Anthropic states that on its Team, Enterprise and API plans customer content is not used to train its models by default, and its data-processing terms form part of the commercial agreement; personal accounts are different, which is why client work never runs on them. The firm’s: a written rule on what may go into the tool, which accounts are used and who reviews outputs. Within the engagement, set-up and training use the firm’s templates and precedents; whether live matter material enters a pilot, and on what conditions, is the firm’s decision, written down first. Everything I see of a firm is confidential. None of this is legal advice; the firm’s own assessment and Bar obligations govern what may be processed.
Should every lawyer receive a Claude licence?
Usually not at the start. Seats go to the people in the pilot workflows and their reviewers; everyone else waits for the numbers. Firm-wide licences on day one are the most reliable way to produce licences nobody opens.
Claude or ChatGPT for a law firm?
Both are capable. For a firm the decision turns less on the model than on the plan, the administrative controls and the rules around it. I work with Claude because it is the tool I use every day and know well enough to set a firm up with confidence. Where another product fits a workflow better, I say so. Product facts are on the Claude for law firms page.
How long does a first AI pilot take?
Long enough to run on real work and produce numbers: weeks rather than months, with the period agreed before it starts. The Claude page sketches a six-week outline; the first-pilot article shows a ten-week pilot that peaked in week two, and what turned it round.
How do we know whether lawyers are actually using it?
Count matters, not opinions: matters where the tool was used, time to a reviewed draft, rework after review, and who stopped and why. “Hours saved” is an estimate. “Seven of nine matters” is a fact a managing partner can manage.
Can you work with firms outside Cyprus?
Yes. Reviews, set-up and training are done remotely as well as in person, and the work has included firms in Greece and Latvia. Product terms and data arrangements vary by jurisdiction, so the firm’s own assessment applies wherever it is.
Who helps Cyprus law firms implement Claude?
I am Philippos Aristotelous, and I implement Claude for Cyprus law firms. I work with established firms of roughly ten to thirty lawyers that want Claude in daily use, safely and profitably, and have no spare partner time. I run the work personally, inside the firm’s own workflows, in Cyprus and remotely across Europe. I do not resell Claude, build software, or provide legal services or advice on AI regulation. The first step is a conversation, not a proposal.
