Why it's different
The billable hour doesn't work for ongoing legal relationships
Traditional law firms are structured around one-off matters. Growing technology companies need context-persistent, always-on legal infrastructure. Those are different problems requiring different operating models.
Succinct takeaways
growth—not to the length of your matters
Succinct takeaways
Monthly coverage fees aligned to your
growth—not to the length of your matters
The incentive problem
The billable hour creates a structural conflict between firm revenue and client efficiency. Every hour spent re-reading background materials that weren’t retained from a prior matter is billable. Every extra redline pass is billable. Every status call to discuss progress that should have been visible is billable.
Most lawyers are skilled and work in good faith. The problem isn’t individual conduct—it’s that the incentive structure points the wrong direction. A firm that eliminates its own inefficiencies earns less money.
Fences prices on coverage and outcomes. Our monthly fee scales with your growth. We have a financial interest in your success—not in the length of your matters.
The technology gap
| Function | Typical legacy firm | Fences |
|---|---|---|
| Document drafting and review | Word with manual redlines; AI tools used out-of-context via copy/paste | AI-assisted drafting and review under privilege-preserving infrastructure |
| Matter history and context | Siloed DMS tied to the matter, not the client relationship | Context layer that persists across engagements without rebuilding |
| Communication | Email, sometimes a client portal you never use | Slack, Teams, dedicated channels, email—wherever you work |
| Status visibility | On request | Structured dashboards updated continuously |
| Contract management | Email attachment archives | Your cloud storage, integrated contract and playbook systems |
| Compliance and IP monitoring | Ad hoc, on request | Programmatic scans and threat matrix updates on schedule |
The workflow gap
| Need | Typical legacy pattern | Fences |
|---|---|---|
| Get in touch | Email (some prefer phone; text can feel intrusive) | Email, Slack, text, dedicated thread—whatever is natural |
| Schedule a meeting | 2–3 emails checking calendar availability | Booking link with live availability |
| Request a document review | Email with attachment in the firm’s accepted format | Notification when you add documents or create a request |
| Check status | Send an email and wait | Dashboard anytime; auto-notifications on changes |
| Understand cost | Ask for an estimate; receive an after-the-fact invoice | Monthly coverage is known; incremental work priced before it starts |
| Access prior work and context | Email search or DMS—if you have access | Context persists in the working system |
The collaboration gap
Traditional legal delivery is usually a black box. Documents go in. Eventually, a polished output comes back. You rarely see the intermediate steps, the reasoning, or what was considered and rejected.
Fences is built for iterative visibility. Shared drafts. Redlines in progress. Decision logs. Work visible as it happens, not only when it’s done. That’s not a client experience amenity—it’s a consequence of building a system where context persists and collaboration is a design principle, not an afterthought.
The privilege gap
Many traditional firms and their clients use AI tools in ways that inadvertently create discoverable records. ChatGPT, Claude, and Microsoft Copilot are not law firms. Communications through them are not privileged. Fences operates under lawyer supervision with infrastructure designed to preserve privilege where privilege can apply.
What we’re not claiming
We’re not claiming legacy firms don’t do excellent work. The best do. And some matters belong with specialized firms—we’ll say so when that’s the case.
What we’re saying: for ongoing legal work at a growing technology company—recurring compliance questions, IP that needs monitoring, product counsel integrated into the development cycle—the billable-hour model creates avoidable cost and friction. The alternative isn’t just “cheaper legal.” It’s a different structure: context-persistent, programmatically monitored, channel-integrated, and designed so you can ask a question without calculating what it costs to ask.
Related: how we work · predictable pricing · privileged channels · contact
Why Fences vs. a traditional law firm
We're not the right fit for every legal matter. Large contested litigation, complex capital markets transactions, and Supreme Court practice are better served by firms that specialize in those things. We mean that.
What we're built for is different: the ongoing legal work of growing technology and data companies. Contracts. Compliance. IP. Product counsel. Data governance. Employment documentation. The issues that recur, compound, and require a durable operating relationship—not a series of one-off engagements where you explain your business again every time you have a question.
For that kind of work, the traditional law firm structure is often a bad fit. Here's why.
The incentive problem
The billable hour creates a structural conflict between firm revenue and client efficiency. Every hour spent re-reading background materials that weren't retained from the last matter is billable. Every extra redline pass is billable. Every status call to discuss progress that should have been visible is billable.
Most lawyers are skilled and work in good faith. The problem isn't individual conduct. It's that the incentive structure points the wrong direction. A firm that eliminates its own inefficiencies earns less money. That's not a complaint—it's a design consequence that clients should understand.
At Fences, we price on coverage and outcomes. Our monthly fee scales with your growth. We have a financial interest in your success, not in the length of your matters.
The technology gap
Traditional law firms typically operate on a technology stack that creates friction by default:
| Function | Typical legacy firm | Fences |
|---|---|---|
| Document drafting and review | Word with manual redlines; AI tools used out-of-context via copy/paste | AI-assisted drafting and review under privilege-preserving infrastructure |
| Matter history and context | Siloed DMS, often tied to the matter—not the client relationship | Context layer that persists across engagements; prior decisions available without rebuilding |
| Communication | Email, sometimes a client portal you never log into | Slack, Teams, dedicated channels, email—wherever you actually work |
| Status visibility | On request | Structured dashboards updated continuously |
| Contract management | Email attachment archives | Your cloud storage, integrated contract and playbook systems |
| IP and compliance monitoring | Ad hoc, on request | Programmatic scans and threat-matrix updates on schedule |
No configuration is universal. Some well-run firms have excellent infrastructure. But the default pattern creates overhead that clients pay for without receiving value from.
The workflow gap
The day-to-day experience of working with a traditional firm creates friction that compounds over time:
| Need | Typical legacy pattern | Fences |
|---|---|---|
| Get in touch | Email only (some prefer phone; text can be seen as intrusive) | Email, Slack, text, dedicated thread—whatever is natural for your team |
| Schedule a meeting | 2–3 emails checking calendar availability | Booking link with live availability |
| Request a document review | Email with attachment in whatever format the firm accepts | Notification-based when you add documents or create a task |
| Check status | Send an email and wait | Dashboard visible anytime; auto-notifications on changes |
| Understand cost | Ask for an estimate; receive an after-the-fact invoice | Monthly coverage is known; incremental work priced in writing before it starts |
| Access prior work and context | Email search or DMS—if you have access | Matter history and context persist in the working system |
The collaboration gap
Traditional legal delivery is usually a black box. Documents go in. Eventually, a polished output comes back. You rarely see the intermediate steps, the reasoning, or what was considered and rejected.
Fences is built for iterative visibility. Shared drafts. Redlines in progress. Decision logs. Work visible as it happens, not only when it's done. That's not a client experience amenity—it's a consequence of building a system where context persists and collaboration is a design principle, not an afterthought.
The privilege gap
Most businesses using AI tools to analyze legal questions are inadvertently creating discoverable records. ChatGPT, Claude, and Microsoft Copilot are not law firms. Communications through them are not privileged. Many traditional law firms also use these tools in ways that can compromise work product protections.
Fences operates under lawyer supervision. Communications happen in lawyer-controlled channels. Analysis is attorney work product. The infrastructure is designed to preserve privilege where privilege can apply.
What we're not claiming
We're not claiming legacy firms don't do excellent work. The best do.
What we're saying is: for ongoing legal work at a growing technology company—where compliance questions recur, IP requires monitoring, product counsel should be integrated into the development cycle, and every question shouldn't require a new engagement letter—the billable-hour firm is often a poor structural fit.
The alternative isn't just "cheaper legal." It's a different structure: context-persistent, programmatically monitored, channel-integrated, designed so that you can ask a question without calculating the cost of asking it.