Practice review · free while in beta
The Full Practice Review
A 10–14 page written audit of how a solo or small-firm practice actually runs — billing, intake, software stack, and the risk flags worth knowing before they become problems. Delivered as a PDF within 48 hours of the intake form.
Free while in betaThe instinct that gets solos in trouble
When a solo lawyer feels the friction — late bills, scattered intake, a software stack that grew by accident — the instinct is usually to buy more software or hire a paralegal. Neither solves the problem on its own, because the problem is rarely tools or staffing in isolation. It’s the gaps between them: where intake hands off to billing, where billing hands off to trust, where the matter file lives and who’s allowed to touch it.
The Full Practice Review names the gaps that are actually costing you time, billing leakage, or risk exposure — and writes them down so you have a record you can act on.
What you send
Roughly ten minutes of intake form. We ask about how your practice runs — your matter types, your billing cadence, the software you use, where the friction shows up. We do not ask for client names, matter captions, financial statements, trust account statements, case files, or anything privileged. The form is structural, not factual.
What you get back in 48 hours
PDF preview
Practice Review — [Firm redacted]
12 pages · delivered within 48 hours
- 01 · Summary and top three recommendations
- 02 · Practice infrastructure
- 03 · Software stack
- 04 · AI opportunities for your practice area
- 05 · Risk flags
01 · Summary and top three recommendations
The cover email points to the three findings most worth your attention. The summary page restates them in writing with the specific actions to take next. If you read nothing else, you know what changed.
02 · Practice infrastructure
How intake reaches you, how matters are opened, how conflicts are checked, how the file is named, where it lives. The section flags the workflows that work today but won’t survive a second person — the kind of gap that turns into a write-off the first time someone is out sick.
03 · Software stack
Every tool you said you use, what it costs annually, what overlaps with another tool you’re already paying for, and where there’s a gap nothing in the stack actually fills. Built for the lawyer paying for three case-management tools because they each solved one problem at the time of purchase.
04 · AI opportunities for your practice area
Specific to the practice areas you named — not a generic “use ChatGPT” page. Where AI is reliably saving solos in your area real time today (drafting routine letters, summarizing depositions, sanity-checking a section of a brief) and where it is currently more risk than reward. Sources cited.
05 · Risk flags
Anything we noticed that would worry a malpractice carrier or an ethics committee — trust accounting cadence, conflict-check rigor, advertising compliance, contractor-vs-employee questions, data retention. Each flag includes the basis (e.g. ABA Model Rule, your state’s relevant guidance) and a recommended next step.
Excerpt · 05 Risk flags
Trust account reconciliation cadence is monthly per your intake response. ABA Model Rule 1.15 and most state rules expect three-way reconciliation each accounting period — the bank statement, the client ledger, and the firm’s internal trust ledger reconciling to each other.
Recommendation: move to monthly three-way reconciliation with a printed and signed report retained for five years. If your bookkeeper handles this, ask which document they reconcile against — many bookkeepers reconcile the bank to the firm ledger but not to client subledgers. Your malpractice carrier will ask the same question on renewal.
Findings cite the rule, name the action, and tell you who to ask.
What this saves you
Solo attorneys typically lose $30,000 to $80,000 a year to a combination that hides in plain sight: unbilled time reconstructed at the end of the day instead of the moment of work, intake leads that go cold while the form sits unread, overlapping software subscriptions paying for the same job twice, and risk patterns no one is looking at until a malpractice carrier asks. Industry data referenced in our research pipeline puts solo utilization at 36% of an 8-hour day — at $250 an hour that is $1,275 a day in revenue earned but never invoiced.
The Practice Review names which of those four leaks are running in your practice today, what they are costing in concrete dollar and hour terms, and the next step on each. The point is to put a number on the leak so you can decide whether closing it is worth doing this quarter or next.
What this is not
Not legal advice — Prevaldi is operational consulting, not a law firm. Not malpractice or ethics counsel; the report names risk patterns and points at the relevant rule, but the call on your specific facts belongs to you and your bar’s ethics line. Not a CRM, billing system, or matter management tool — those are products you already buy elsewhere; the review tells you which ones to keep, not which ones to replace itself.
The form asks about your practice, not your clients. Don’t paste client names, matter captions, or privileged facts. If you wouldn’t write it on a postcard, don’t put it in the form.
Opens a full-page form — takes about 10 minutes.
Questions people ask first
Who writes it?
One person — Hammad Arain, the founder, with input from a panel of practicing solos in the early review pool. Not a team of associates billing time. Not generated by an AI model and shipped without review.
Will you contact me after?
Only if you reply. Reply with a follow-up question and you get a written answer in the same thread. Don't reply, and you don't hear from us — no nurture sequence, no “checking in” emails, no calls.
What if my answers raise more questions?
We email one batch of clarifying questions before writing. Answer at your pace; the 48-hour clock resumes when you reply. We don't interrogate; we ask the things that actually change the recommendation.
What if I want changes to the report?
Reply to the delivery email. Factual corrections (you don't actually use Clio, you switched in March) get a revised PDF within 24 hours. Disagreements with a recommendation stay in the report — we'd rather you have the full reasoning to push back on than a sanitized version.
Why is it free?
Prevaldi is new and we need case studies. The scope and quality match the eventual paid version — only the price changes. We'd rather earn a reputation by writing thirty good reviews than by selling thirty mediocre ones.