Choosing an AI Legal Assistant plan when you sell SaaS

Three lifetime tiers sit on the publisher's table: Personal, Professional and BYO key. That is a one-off purchase structure rather than a monthly seat model, which matters when your team is two people and your cash goes on outbound. Your job is to map each tier's usage allowance to the legal admin you actually run: drafts, deadline calendars and the agency steps that follow.

Look at what each row says about usage and about bringing your own key. The BYO key row exists for buyers who already hold a model key and want to supply it themselves. Compare that against the Personal and Professional rows, which carry their own usage terms. Do not guess at the numbers; read the published table and treat it as the only price source.

Your demo-booking goal shapes the read. Legal documents appear in your week as contract questions, data-processing terms and the paperwork behind a new market. The tier you choose should cover the volume of those tasks for two people, not the volume of a legal department. Anything above that is spend you cannot justify to a co-founder.

Start from the work, not from the tier name. A two-person team selling demos to operations managers in named countries needs action plans, document drafts, deadline and evidence checklists, and mapped escalation routes. If the Personal row covers that workload, it is the sensible starting point and leaves budget for outreach tools.

Move up to Professional only when you can name the constraint the lower row creates. Perhaps your draft volume rises with each new country you enter, or you need more room for the checklists behind a contract question. Write that constraint down before you pay, so the upgrade is a decision rather than an impulse. The tier table tells you what changes between rows.

The BYO key row suits a team that already pays for a model key and would rather route usage through it. That is a procurement preference, not a quality claim. Weigh it on whether you want to manage the key yourself. If nobody on the team wants that admin, the simpler rows are the honest choice.

The product turns a legal problem into a plan, a draft, a deadline calendar and a list of agencies and steps. It is not a law firm. That distinction matters when a drafted clause or a deadline reaches a prospect or a signed contract, because the output is a starting point you must check, not an opinion you can lean on.

Local rules change. Agency names, filing windows and document formats differ by country and shift over time, which is exactly the ground your named-country outreach covers. Build a step into your process where a person verifies every deadline and form against the current official source before it goes anywhere near a customer.

High-stakes matters need a lawyer. If a dispute, a regulatory question or a contract with real exposure lands on your desk, the right move is to escalate rather than to draft harder. Set that expectation with your co-founder now, so the tool supports a lawyer's work instead of quietly replacing it in a busy week.

Put the two candidate rows side by side and ask what each one changes for two sellers. If the difference is usage volume, estimate your monthly count of drafts and checklists and see whether the lower row holds. If the difference is how you supply the model key, decide whether your team wants that responsibility at all.

Then test the tier against your objection. Big lists without decision makers are a sourcing problem, and no tier of a legal document assistant fixes it. Be clear that this purchase covers the legal admin around a deal, not the prospect data inside it. Keeping that line sharp stops you blaming the wrong tool when a list disappoints.

Finally, write a short review date. After a month of real use, check whether drafts, deadlines and escalation routes are getting done faster, and whether anyone has had to verify an output that was wrong. If the lower tier held, stay there. If a named constraint appeared, the next row is easier to justify with evidence.