A small firm’s drafting week is contract redlines, demand letters, client updates, all competing with the caseload for the same hours. This page documents the recorded build that hires an employee for that work. Edward is an AI employee who lives in one downloaded folder, runs in the Claude desktop app, and works for the whole firm through email. One person sets him up once; after that, a lawyer forwards him a contract and gets the redline back in the same thread.

His whole job is one loop, the same four moves on every request:

  1. A lawyer emails him the task.
  2. He reads the firm’s relevant files in the employee folder, where his knowledge, his memory, and his instructions live as plain files.
  3. He drafts the documents, updating those files as he works.
  4. He delivers the finished work in your inbox, and only ever your inbox.

It is still your work at every step: review-ready, never send-ready. A licensed attorney approves everything before it leaves the firm. Everything below is the run as it was recorded, screen by screen, on a synthetic firm: fake clients, real workflows.

Step 1: Hire Edward

The hire is a download, an app, and one typed greeting; his own interview does the rest.

  1. Download the employee folder

    The free download sits in the panel at the end of this page. Unzip it and drop it anywhere on your computer: one folder named Edward, holding his instructions, his four skills, his pre-filled playbook, and his office folders, all as plain files you can open and read.

    Result: The Edward folder sits on your computer.

  2. Open the Claude desktop app

    The app is a free download; the official page is claude.com/download. The folder costs nothing, and the app runs on a paid Claude plan, Pro or Max in the recorded build. The work happens in the tab called "Code", and no code gets written or read there at any point.

    Result: The "Code" tab is open.

  3. Look at what you downloaded

    Six folders, each with a plain title. matters holds your client files as the firm keeps them. firm-positions holds the terms you insist on, written down once. firm is what he learns about your firm when he interviews you. skills are your firm's processes in plain text files he can run. drafts is where work waits for a lawyer, and records keeps one line per action.

    Result: You can read everything that makes him the employee.

  4. Choose the Edward folder

    Pick the unzipped Edward folder. Once chosen, the app's file view shows his files beside the chat.

    In the app: "Code" → "Local" → "Select folder"

    Result: Edward's folder is the working folder.

  5. Type hi

    That is the entire hire. The folder ships with his instructions, so he already knows what to do: he reads them, introduces himself, and starts the interview.

    Result: Edward is hired and asking his first question.

The unzipped Edward folder in Finder listing the CLAUDE file and the six folders from drafts to skills
The whole employee on disk: "CLAUDE.md" plus six plain folders, "drafts", "firm", "firm-positions", "matters", "records", and "skills". Full size
The Claude desktop app Code tab with the macOS Open dialog on the Edward folder and its files in the preview column
Choosing the working folder in the app's "Code" tab: the Open dialog sits on "Edward", the folder's own files listed in the preview column, and "Open" one click away. Full size
[ Typed in the chat ] 
hi
What comes back: Edward reads his folder, introduces himself as the firm's document desk, states that everything he produces is a draft for your attorney to review and sign, and asks his first question: the firm's name and practice.
Edward's first chat message introducing the document desk and asking for the firm's name and practice area
Everything typed to start the hire: "hi". Edward answers: "Hello, and welcome. I'm Edward. I run your firm's document desk: contract redlines, demand letters, client updates.", states that everything he produces is a draft for your attorney to review and sign, and asks the first of his four questions: "What's your firm's name, and what kind of law do you practice?" Full size

Before his first question is even answered, the boundary is already stated in his introduction: everything he produces is a draft for your attorney to review and sign, never something that goes out on its own.

Step 2: The interview

Four questions, one at a time: your firm, your playbook, the delivery, and his name. For every answer, he updates his files as you watch.

  1. Answer the firm question

    His first question is the firm's name and practice. The recorded answer is one line: "Hollis and Reyes LLP. Commercial work, contracts and disputes. Houston, Texas." Answer however fits your practice; plain sentences are enough.

    Result: He confirms your work is what he is built for.

  2. Change what differs in the playbook

    The playbook arrives pre-filled with standard contract positions, and he asks one thing: does your firm do anything differently? Name your changes in plain words. If your positions already live in a document, drop that file into firm-positions instead and he reads it there.

    Result: Your answers go into the positions file, and what already matched stays.

  3. Pick the delivery

    He can file finished work in the folder or deliver it by email. The build picks email, which step 4 sets up. He states the condition himself, unprompted: mail only moves while the app is open.

    Result: Delivery is set, with its condition said out loud.

  4. Keep his name, or change it

    The last question is whether the name Edward works for you. The recorded answer: "no its fine". The whole interview runs about two minutes.

    Result: The interview ends and he writes the firm's files.

[ Typed in the chat, the playbook question ] 
Three things. Indemnity has to run both ways, and we cap it at one times the value of the deal. Three years on confidentiality is right. And use Delaware on our client Brightline's paper, it matches their master agreement.
What comes back: He confirms all three and distinguishes what changed from what already matched: mutual indemnity with the cap goes in, Delaware goes in, and three years on confidentiality already stood in the pre-filled playbook.
The playbook interview question with the typed three position answer and the positions file open beside the chat
The playbook question and the whole answer. Edward lists the pre-filled positions and asks: "Does your firm do anything differently, or is there a position you want set now?" The typed reply carries the three positions, and the positions file sits open on the right, its severity ladder ending "business decision is never edited, only flagged to the responsible attorney." Full size

The playbook is the file that puts later drafts on the firm’s terms instead of generic best practice. Every redline in step 5 traces back to a line in it, and the interview is how those lines become yours.

Step 3: Hand him the matter

Edward wants his email desk next; the recording gives him a full matter first, so he has something to work on. This step is one drag and one sentence.

  1. Drag the client's folder into matters

    The recorded matter is Brightline, a supply company chasing a customer, Cedar Foods, over unpaid invoices: contracts, invoices, statements, email threads, fifty documents in total, exactly as the client handed them over. A Clio export, or an export from any practice management system, drops in the same way.

    Result: The matter sits inside Edward's folder.

  2. Type the one sentence

    The whole instruction is the copy block below: organize it into a proper matter and read it back with the numbers. He plans the work on screen and reads every document, every page, with a team of parallel readers.

    Result: The matter comes back organized, registered as HR-2026-001, and read back to the cent.

  3. Read the soft spots

    Under the numbers he lists what a lawyer should look at before anyone asks. The recording flags three, including a ninety dollar discrepancy on one invoice that was never reconciled, with the documents supporting the client's figure.

    Result: The judgment calls are on the table before any drafting starts.

Two Finder windows with the Brightline client folder mid drag toward the matters folder inside the Edward folder
The handover, mid drag: the client folder "Brightline" on its way to the employee folder's "matters" row, beside the six folders and "CLAUDE.md". Full size
[ Typed in the chat ] 
I just dropped our client Brightline's folder into matters, exactly as they handed it to us. Organize it into a proper matter and read it back to me with the numbers.
What comes back: He plans the work on screen, reads all fifty documents with a team of parallel readers, files the matter in five sections as HR-2026-001, and reads it back: $42,410.00 in principal plus $1,873.96 in charges, $44,283.96 in total as of May 31.
Edward's read back of the organized matter with the three invoices, the principal, the charges, and the total
The read back with the numbers: "INV-3102, due February 14, 2026" at "$14,820.00", "INV-3148, due March 4, 2026" at "$13,650.00", "INV-3210, due March 22, 2026" at "$13,940.00", "Principal outstanding" "$42,410.00", "Finance charges through May 31, 2026" "$1,873.96", and "Total as of May 31, 2026" "$44,283.96". Full size
The three soft spots Edward flags in the organized matter including the ninety dollar discrepancy on one invoice
"Three soft spots your attorney should know about." The second is the one a client would ask about: "Cedar's records show INV-3148 as $13,560 rather than $13,650. Ninety dollars, never reconciled, and their invoice and the joint count sheet support Brightline's figure." Full size

The flag on INV-3148 is worth remembering. It returns in step 6, when the demand letter demands the higher number and a reply asks Edward to defend it.

Step 4: Set up his email address

His address runs on AgentMail, a hosted inbox service for AI agents. Creating the address takes about a minute, and Edward sets up the desk himself.

  1. Create his address on AgentMail

    AgentMail is a hosted inbox service for AI agents, free to get started on the recorded build's plan. In the console: "Inboxes", then "+ CREATE INBOX", type a username for your firm (the recording types "edward-reyes"), and create it. That name is Edward's email address.

    Result: Edward has an address of his own.

  2. Create one API key

    Under "API Keys", create a key and copy it; the console shows it a single time. The key works like a password for Edward's own inbox and nothing else. Treat it like any key: share it with no one, and revoke it in the same console the moment you want it gone.

    Result: You hold the address and the key, the only two things the desk needs.

  3. Paste both to Edward in the chat

    He asked for exactly these two during the interview. Notice what you are not handing over: no login for the firm's own mailbox exists anywhere in his folder, so Edward cannot get into your email at all. He writes his own mail settings, names the inbox so his mail arrives as Edward, and sends a self test to the firm's address.

    Result: The desk is up, and his test note is in your inbox.

  4. Put him on watch

    One typed line starts the watching, and its mirror, stop watching the email, ends it. On watch he checks his own address about every twenty seconds, for as long as the app stays open. After a restart, one start watching your email puts him back on duty.

    Result: Mail to his address gets picked up while the app is open.

  5. Prove it from your own inbox

    The recording is in Gmail; Outlook or any other provider works the same way. Write to his address, ask for a test reply, and watch it land in the same thread. From here on the app stays open in the background, and the work moves to email.

    Result: The loop is proven both ways, in your own mail.

The AgentMail console Create Inbox form with the username edward-reyes typed and the default domain selected
Creating his address in the AgentMail console: the "Create Inbox" form, the username "edward-reyes" typed into "USERNAME (optional)", the domain "agentmail.to (Default)", and the "+ CREATE INBOX" button below. Full size
Edward reporting his mail desk is set up, completing the pasted address, and going on watch in the chat
The desk coming up, in his own words: "The mail desk is set up. My address is edward-reyes@agentmail.to.", his catch on the pasted delivery address ("you wrote 'job21418@gmail', and I completed it to job21418@gmail.com"), and the honest boundary: "I'm on watch now. Mail to edward-reyes@agentmail.to reaches me while the app is open." Full size
[ Typed in the chat ] 
start watching your email
What comes back: He goes on watch and says what that means in his own words: mail to his address reaches him while the app is open. The matching stop watching the email line takes him off watch again.
[ Emailed to Edward's address, subject: test ] 
Write us a test email back
What comes back: His reply arrives in the same thread about a minute later, confirming the loop works both ways and naming the boundary: everything he produces is for your attorney's review, never for sending.
The test thread in Gmail with the typed request and Edward's reply confirming the loop works both ways
The proof, in one thread: the typed "Write us a test email back", and Edward's answer a minute later: "Your test reached me and this reply confirms the loop works both ways.", signed "Hollis and Reyes LLP document desk" and marked "Sent via AgentMail". Full size

Edward can send mail to the firm addresses you configured and to nobody else: he drafts, you send. And the same missing login that keeps him out of your mailbox means he can never leave drafts inside it.

Step 5: Email him a contract, get the redline

The first job, end to end, from the inbox: a counterparty NDA in, a redlined Word document back in the same thread.

  1. Forward the contract with one line

    Merrivale, the counterparty on one of Brightline's deals, sent over their NDA to sign. Forward it to Edward's address with the one line ask in the copy block below. That is the entire handoff.

    Result: The assignment is in his inbox.

  2. Look over his shoulder while he works

    Back in the app, the mail arrives, gets filed to its own matter, and the review starts on the redline skill. A skill is one of your firm's processes written down once, in plain English, in a text file; the four in the folder's skills directory show the shape.

    Result: You watch the process run; there is nothing for you to do.

  3. Open the reply

    It arrives in the same thread about four minutes later with two files: the risk memo, and the redlined Word document. His mail leads with the totals: 12 clauses reviewed, 3 red flags redlined, and the Section 9 non-solicit flagged as a business decision, not edited.

    Result: Tracked changes wait in Word, ready to accept or reject.

  4. Check the edits against your positions

    Open the positions file beside the document. The mutual cap the interview set is in Section 8 almost word for word, and the governing law clause now reads Delaware. What he refused to edit matters as much: Section 9 carries no mark, because the playbook holds restrictive covenants as business decisions.

    Result: Each edit traces to a position the firm wrote; the judgment call stays flagged.

[ Typed above the forwarded NDA ] 
Edward, please redline this NDA against our firm's positions.
What comes back: The redline comes back in the same thread about four minutes later: a risk memo plus the Word document, 12 clauses reviewed, 3 red flags redlined, and the Section 9 non-solicit flagged as a business decision, not edited.
The risk memo for the Merrivale NDA with its count chips and the first ranked red finding underneath
The risk memo that rides with every redline: the header naming the parties and the review perspective, the caveat "Review-ready, not send-ready. A licensed attorney makes the final call.", the counts "12 clauses reviewed", "7 tracked edits made", "3 red flags", "1 business decision", and the ranked findings, each stating what the clause says, the position it violated, and the edits made. Full size
The redlined NDA in Word with tracked changes on indemnification and governing law and no marks on section nine
Actual tracked changes in Word, not a chat answer: the Section 8 cap inserted ("shall not exceed one times the value of the engagement"), Section 11 moved from "the laws of England and Wales" to "the laws of the State of Delaware", and Section 9, "Non-Solicitation of Personnel", left without a single mark. Full size
The Word redline beside the firm's positions file with the indemnification edit matching the written position
The mechanism on one screen: the positions file states "Indemnity obligations must run BOTH ways, and must be capped at one times the value of the underlying engagement.", and the redline beside it carries that cap into Section 8: "shall not exceed one times the value of the engagement to which the disclosure relates". The edits come from the file your interview answers wrote. Full size

What comes back is a document a lawyer can accept, reject, and sign off on, plus a memo a partner can read cold. Where the playbook says business decision, he flags it and leaves the judgment with the firm.

Step 6: The demand letter, from all fifty documents

The redline was one document. The demand letter is drafted from the whole record, and the client update rides along with it.

  1. Assign the letter by email

    A new mail to Edward's address, three short sentences: the copy block below. Add whatever your professional experience would tell an associate; in the recording, the tone ask came back honored.

    Result: The job runs unattended while you work.

  2. Read what ran while it drafted

    His research verified every statute the letter leans on, word for word, at the state's own statutes site, and one candidate authority that did not cleanly hold up was left out. A second team took Cedar's side like opposing counsel, and a fresh reviewer read the finished letter cold and caught four real problems, so the delivered version is already the corrected second one.

    Result: The letter arrives about half an hour later, reviewed before you ever see it.

  3. Open the reply and the letter

    The mail body is the explanation memo: every claim in the letter, point by point, each naming the matter files behind it. The letter demands the exact balance from step 3, $44,283.96 as of May 31, and where a number needs a lawyer it carries a bracketed placeholder instead of a guess: the forward interest, the deadline, the signing attorney.

    Result: You can check any claim in one click before it goes anywhere.

  4. Check one citation yourself

    The research file in the matter folder keeps every verified link. Take the link for section 2-709 and the browser opens the official Delaware Code page: the exact section, on the state's own site.

    Result: The verification trail holds up outside Edward's own word.

  5. Question his numbers

    The ninety dollar gap from step 3, Cedar's $13,560 against the letter's $13,650, is exactly what a client could ask about, and the letter demands the higher figure. Reply in the letter's thread with the question in the copy block below; his answer names a file for every claim it makes.

    Result: The number is defended from the record, four ways, in about a minute.

  6. Forward the client update

    A separate mail arrived with the letter: the update for the client, addressed to Brightline's contact and ready to forward. Edward cannot send it; he can mail nobody but your firm. You read it, fill the bracketed attorney items, and the OK is the forward itself, from your own address.

    Result: The client hears from the firm, and every word passed a lawyer first.

[ Emailed to Edward's address ] 
Draft the demand letter for the Brightline matter. Demand the full outstanding balance as of the May statement. And keep the tone measured.
What comes back: About half an hour later his reply arrives in the thread: the letter attached as a Word document, and the mail body an explanation memo walking the letter point by point, each point naming the matter files behind it.
Edward's demand letter reply whose body explains every claim in the letter and names the matter files behind it
The reply body is the explanation: "The demand is $44,283.96, the full outstanding balance as of the May statement, per your assignment. Every component below is checkable in one click.", then point by point down to the three Delaware authorities, "each verified at the state's own statutes site before use", and one candidate authority checked and deliberately not cited. Full size
The demand letter with the three invoices itemized, the total due to the cent, and a bracketed attorney blank
The letter itself: the three invoices to the cent, "Total due as of May 31, 2026: $44,283.96.", and where a number needs a lawyer, no guess: "[ATTORNEY TO SET: forward interest through the payment date, if demanded.]" Full size
The official Delaware Code page for the action for the price section open in the browser with the address visible
One verified link checked by hand: "delcode.delaware.gov" in the address bar and "§ 2-709. Action for the price." on the page, the exact section on the state's own site. Full size
[ Replied in the demand letter thread ] 
Cedar's own system shows Inv-3148 at 13,560, but your letter demands 13,650 for that invoice. Why should our number win over theirs, and what do we point at if they push back?
What comes back: His answer arrives in the thread about a minute later and defends the number four ways: the invoice arithmetic, the signed price list, Cedar's own joint recount, and Cedar's June 10 mail stating it does not dispute the invoices or the amounts.
Edward's four part defense of the higher invoice figure with every claim naming its source file in the thread
The answer to why our number wins: "Our number wins because it is the only one the paper supports, four ways." The invoice arithmetic comes out at "exactly $13,650.00 (INV-3148.pdf)", the signed price list carries the unit prices, the joint recount "reconciled every line at zero variance", and Cedar's own June 10 mail states it "does not dispute the invoices or the amounts". The worst case, in his words: "the difference at stake is $90." Full size
The client update mail ready to forward with the balance summary and the attorney to confirm placeholders
The client update, arrived as its own mail: "Ready to forward to Diane Castellanos at Brightline Supply Co. Review, then send from your own address.", the balance stated to the cent, and the sign off left as "[ATTORNEY TO CONFIRM: signing attorney]". Full size

Your part in the whole letter job was two emails and one forward, plus the review that stays a lawyer’s. The letter is drafted and explained, the questioned number is defended from the record, and every decision in it is still yours.

Step 7: Correct him by email

The promise from the hire, kept: changing Edward’s work without ever touching the app.

  1. Reply with the change

    Say the firm wants a longer confidentiality tail on the Merrivale NDA. In the redline thread from step 5, reply with the one line in the copy block below. That is the whole request; the app never gets opened.

    Result: The correction is assigned from your inbox.

  2. Open the corrected redline

    About two minutes later his reply is in the thread with the corrected document attached: five years from disclosure on this NDA only, the trade secret carve-out kept, every other change standing. His mail states the part that matters for the firm: the playbook keeps three years as the standard, because one client's exception is not a new firm position.

    Result: The document changed; the playbook did not.

  3. Read the records

    The records folder keeps the whole shift, one line per action: every mail in, every reply, every file touched, every flag raised, dated. If anyone ever asks what the AI did on a matter, the answer is on file.

    Result: The shift is auditable, line by line.

[ Replied in the redline thread from step 5 ] 
Edward, make the confidentiality five years for this NDA. Everything else stays.
What comes back: About two minutes later the corrected redline is in the thread: five years from disclosure on this NDA only, every other change standing, and the playbook's three year standard untouched.
The redline thread with the five year instruction and Edward's corrected reply carrying both new attachments
The correction round in one thread: the typed "Edward, make the confidentiality five years for this NDA. Everything else stays." at 9:40 PM, and his 9:42 PM reply: "confidentiality now runs five years from disclosure per your instruction, with the trade secret carve-out kept, and every other change stands exactly as before". The risk memo records that "five years was your call for this NDA only, and your playbook keeps three years as the standard." Full size
The records log file open in the app with one dated line per action from the recorded shift highlighted
The shift on the record, one line per action: the research ledger built, "Demand letter v1 drafted; cold reviewer returned NEEDS CHANGES with four catches; v2 built with all fixes", every delivery, and the last line highlighted: "Rebuilt the redline as v2 with that one change" with "Playbook standard stays three years." Full size

So that is how you work with him: assign by email, receive by email, and send corrections the same way.

Honest limits

In an eight hour day, the average lawyer puts about three hours into billable work, and roughly five hours of every day go to the unbilled rest: the organizing, the client updates, the chasing (Clio’s Legal Trends data). The work you watched Edward do on this page is that kind of work. The honest part comes with it, because Edward has four real limits right now.

  • Office hours: he works while the Claude app is open and he is off when it is closed. The contract that arrives at nine PM on Friday waits until Monday.
  • Your mailbox: the missing login that keeps him out of your inbox also means he cannot watch it for new work or leave drafts inside it. You forward work in; that deeper wiring is not in this folder.
  • Nobody is watching him: if he errors out mid shift, no alert reaches anyone. Once lawyers rely on him, a silent failure at the wrong moment is expensive; a watchdog that alerts you is the setup you would want, and this build does not include one.
  • Nobody is maintaining him: your templates change, your skills change, the AI models change, and what you downloaded is what you will still be running unless improving him is someone’s job.

Behind those four sits one more honest gap: the Edward you download is the generic version. He works, but he is not built around your firm, not your practice areas, not your templates, not your systems. Getting him from good to the best version for your firm is real work, and it is exactly the work that needs the one person from the start of this page.

I am not a lawyer; building AI employees for law firms is the work this page comes from. That one person can be me: the managed Edward runs without the four limits, built around your firm specifically, watched twenty four hours a day, and kept current as your firm changes. On a call you watch an employee like this run on your firm’s own work, and yours is live within forty eight hours of kickoff. The card in the panel below is that path; the free folder beside it is exactly the build on this page and the honest place to start.