Jureva.ai

The Managed Intelligence Infrastructure for Complex Plaintiff Litigation

A managed service that pairs secure case intelligence with accountable execution—from better case selection to settlement conversion, with Jureva carrying out the operating work.

Fragmented records

Structured reasoning

A decision

An operating action

A resolved outcome

Investor Opportunity Presentation | Version 2.0

The thesis

Plaintiff firms manage portfolios of uncertain legal assets—but their operating systems do not.

A managing partner can tell you the value of her building and her receivables. Ask her the expected value of the 180 cases on her shelves and she gives you an educated feeling.

Jureva is a managed service: secure case intelligence, advanced reasoning, and lawyer-governed quality, with Jureva carrying out the execution—so firms can invest in better cases and realize value without proportional growth in senior legal headcount.

Select stronger cases

Develop them consistently

Allocate case capital intelligently

Convert settlement-ready matters into realized outcomes

Recurring managed-service revenue today; compounding reasoning assets and declining labor intensity over time.

The problem

The firm’s highest-value decisions still run on fragmented evidence, partner intuition, and manual handoffs.

The file everyone agrees is worth settling has been open for nine months. Nobody has done anything wrong. There is simply no one whose job it is to close it.

Intake

Investigation

Experts

Discovery

Demand

Negotiation

Trial / Settlement

Leak 01

Money spent before anyone can see the case will fail

Weak cases absorb attorney time and expert expense before failure becomes visible.

Leak 02

Strong cases sold short because the proof surfaces late

Causal chains and defense vulnerabilities appear after the value conversation has already happened.

Leak 03

Settlement-ready files sit open because nobody owns the close

The cross-functional conversion work has no owner, so the matter waits.

Case-management systems record activity; they rarely reason about legal, medical, and economic meaning.

Why now

Legal AI adoption proves the demand—but software still leaves the execution unmanaged.

Firms already bought the AI tools. They summarize records beautifully. Then the summary lands in an inbox, and a partner still has to decide what to do about it.

Plaintiff firms face pressure to improve case productivity and cash timing.

AI point tools have normalized medical summaries, drafting, record retrieval, and demand packages.⁶

Complex reasoning still requires traceability, attorney governance, and practice-specific configuration.

A persistent execution gap remains between “this case should settle” and “this case is resolved.”

Jureva’s category is managed intelligence infrastructure—a managed service that owns the execution, not another legal AI feature.

How it works

A managed service connects intelligence to action across the full economic life of a case.

One continuous managed service from the first record request to the money landing in the client’s account. Each stage hands the next stage something usable—and Jureva operates the handoffs.

Stage 1

Intake intelligence

merit + expected value

Stage 2

Case development

living claim map

Stage 3

Expert / adversarial reasoning

defense simulation

Stage 4

Settlement intelligence

resolution corridor

Stage 5

ResolutionOps conversion

managed closure

Stage 6

Portfolio intelligence

capital + cash outlook

Governance runs across every stage

Sources traceable → lawyer review → approval gates → client retains final authority

The wedge

Three complex medical specialties share one reusable reasoning architecture.

Medical malpractice

Birth injury

Nursing-home abuse & neglect

One shared reasoning core

Duty / standard of care
Action or omission
Causation / alternative cause
Damages and expert proof
Expected case economics

60%–75%

of underlying data structures, reasoning workflow, quality controls, and integrations expected to be reusable — planning assumption

High case value

Dense records

Expert dependence

Real cost of a bad decision

Without the coordination burden of mass torts or class actions.

ResolutionOps

The economic leak happens after the firm already knows a case should settle.

Today

Senior lawyers rebuild the record again
Coordinate experts between other deadlines
Prepare the demand from scratch
Analyze counters in stolen hours
Schedule mediation, then chase closing steps

With ResolutionOps

Jureva’s managed operations team assembles the intelligence
Manages preparation and counter analysis as a service
Runs deadlines, coordination, and escalation
Licensed counsel communicates positions
Closure or documented impasse, on the record

ResolutionOps is a managed service: it converts a case-intelligence recommendation into a supervised operating process—run by Jureva, governed by the firm—leading to agreement or documented impasse.

Jureva is the plaintiff firm’s aligned resolution operator—an accountable managed service, not software the firm has to staff. Jureva is never the neutral mediator.

ResolutionOps

A five-stage managed service turns settlement readiness into accountable execution.

Detect the window

Compare the resolution corridor with probability-adjusted trial value, remaining expense, delay, and capacity.

↳ Signal review

Authorize transfer

Supervising attorney approves scope and the negotiating-authority process.

↳ Attorney approval

Build the dossier

Liability, causation, damages, experts, defense simulation, and economics in one place.

↳ Quality review

Operate negotiation

Licensed counsel communicates legal positions; Jureva manages preparation, counters, deadlines, escalation.

↳ Authority thresholds

Drive closure

Coordinate independent mediation if needed; manage terms, releases, milestones — or document impasse and return to litigation.

↳ Client sign-off

Every stage ends in a decision the supervising attorney owns; Jureva carries out everything between decisions as a managed service. The process ends in agreement or in documented impasse — both are complete outcomes.

Professional responsibility

Jureva is plaintiff-aligned; neutral mediation stays structurally independent.

Jureva ResolutionOps

Retained by the plaintiff firm
Operates with privileged firm intelligence
Supports licensed negotiation
Named attorney supervision and approval thresholds

separate

Independent mediator

Jointly accepted neutral
Separate clean workspace
Only party-authorized submissions
Structurally independent of Jureva

Plaintiff retains final settlement authority.

Pricing is not tied to recovery or legal fees.

Privileged plaintiff-side intelligence is never reused in a neutral workspace without explicit authorization.

The boundary reduces unauthorized-practice, neutrality-conflict, and settlement-bias risk while preserving Jureva’s differentiated role.

The customer

One better decision a year justifies the contract.

A 22-attorney medical malpractice firm in Orange County. One better acceptance decision or one settlement closed a quarter earlier pays for the contract.

8–40

Attorneys

25–150

Total employees

$10M–$75M

Annual revenue

75–400

Complex active matters

20–50

New complex matters / year

10+ per year

Mature matters where timing moves return

Who signs off

Managing partner

COO

Head of litigation

Finance

Better case decisions + scalable capacity + faster cash realization + execution delivered as an accountable managed service

Managing partner plus a COO, executive director, or sophisticated operations lead. Digitized records on Filevine, Litify, SmartAdvocate, or Clio.⁸

Packaging

Three recurring packages, one add-on, and implementation priced on its own.

Case Intake Intelligence

Case Intelligence Operations

Portfolio Intelligence Enterprise

ResolutionOps add-on

$15K monthly capacity retainer
$10K activation per accepted matter
$7.5K completed-cycle fee

$250K–$640K annual value

Implementation — separate from recurring service

Onboarding: $50K–$125K

Case-management integration: $75K–$250K

Standard workflow configuration belongs in recurring service; repeated client-specific development is separately scoped.

Preliminary model — assumptions require pilot validation

Account economics

In the base case, ResolutionOps expands a $780K account to about $1.16M—roughly 49% growth.

Base case, one Operations account, one year

Operations account

$780K → $1.16M

Enterprise account

$1.32M → $1.70M

≈ $380K annual ResolutionOps revenue — about 49% account growth.

The completed-cycle fee is paid for settlement or documented impasse. It is never triggered by recovery.

Illustrative planning assumptions — to be validated through closed-case analysis and live pilots

Unit economics

Launch economics fund delivery; standardization is what creates venture-scale margins.

~$681K

Blended annual contract value

46.3%

Blended launch gross margin

~6.7 months

Gross-profit CAC payback at $175K CAC

Blended gross margin

42%–47% → 58%–65%

Cases per legal operations analyst

75–100 → 150–225

Clients per supervising lawyer

2–3 → 4–6

Resolution matters per supervising settlement lawyer

20–30 / year → 45–60 / year

Reusable Skills

Standard dossiers

Automated evidence assembly

Firm-specific reasoning memory

Exception-based attorney review

Preliminary model — assumptions require pilot validation

Market

California is the proof market; national expansion supplies the headroom.

California¹

40–90 qualified firms · $24M–$54M

California + Oregon + Washington¹

75–120 firms · $45M–$72M

United States¹

350–700 firms · $210M–$420M core managed-service TAM

ResolutionOps U.S. planning range: $100M–$250M

Expansion overlay, partly overlapping the core TAM. Settlement intelligence is already inside the core packages; ResolutionOps monetizes additional operating work. Do not add it to the core TAM.

Three-year West Coast SOM: 8–15 customers; $4.8M–$9M ARR

Directional, bottom-up planning model; firm deduplication, plaintiff orientation, purchasing power, delegation rates, and willingness to pay still require validation.

Operating model

Year 3 reaches $25.3M revenue and positive EBITDA—if delivery leverage is proven.

Year 1

6 customers · 15% ResolutionOps attach

Year 2

18 customers · 35% ResolutionOps attach

Year 3

40 customers · 50% ResolutionOps attach

Ambitious scenario — not a forecast. Year 2–3 scale requires national selling or adjacent-vertical expansion after California proof.

Go to market

Three paid design partners can test value, delivery economics, and ResolutionOps demand.

01 · Days 0–30

Build one closed-case demonstration in each of the three initial verticals.

02 · Days 20–60

Recruit three paid design partners at $75K–$150K for 90–120-day pilots.

03 · Days 45–120

Validate against 15–25 closed matters and 5–10 active matters per partner.

04 · Days 60–120

Select two ResolutionOps pilot firms and 10–15 live settlement-ready matters.

05 · Days 30–180

Instrument attorney hours, issue discovery, range accuracy, cycle time, partner escalations, direct delivery cost, and production conversion.

06 · Days 120–180

Convert at least two pilots into $35K–$65K monthly production engagements.

Los Angeles / Orange County

Broader California

Seattle / Portland

National associations and specialists after 3–5 reference customers

The moat and the ask

Delivery becomes defensible only when every engagement compounds proprietary assets.

Vertical case ontologies

Traceable lawyer-governed quality system

Secure embedded integrations

Resolution benchmarks connecting case characteristics, posture, timing, cost, recommended range, and realized outcome

Illustrative capital requirement: $5M–$7M, released against proof milestones.

Product proof

Commercial proof

45%+ initial gross margin with a path above 60%

Retention and expansion proof

ResolutionOps proof across 10–15 live matters

Jureva intends to become the managed intelligence service for complex plaintiff litigation—carrying out the operating work that turns better reasoning into better portfolio returns, and settlement readiness into realized outcomes.

We would welcome a working session on the design-partner slate and the financing plan.

Appendix

Detail behind the model: delivery costs, scenario sensitivity, risks, valuation sensitivity, and sources.

Appendix A

Package delivery cost model

Monthly direct cost	Intake	Operations	Enterprise
Account manager allocation	$2K	$3K	$5K
Lawyer quality allocation	$5K	$10K	$16K
Client success allocation	$2K	$3K	$5K
Legal operations analysts	$5K	$10K	$18K
AI, hosting, processing	$2K	$4K	$7K
Shared development / support	$3K	$5K	$7K
Total direct cost	$19K	$35K	$58K
Launch gross margin	45.7%	46.2%	47.3%

Jureva preliminary management model, Version 2.0

Appendix B

ResolutionOps scenario sensitivity

Measure	Conservative	Base	Strong
Mature decision-point matters	20	35	50
Active-resolution recommendation	40%	55%	70%
Delegation rate	50%	60%	75%
Delegated matters	4	12	26
Agreements reached	55%	65%	75%
Completed settlements	2	8	20
Annual ResolutionOps revenue	~$250K	~$380K	~$640K

The base column matches the funnel on the expansion-economics section: 35 mature matters resolve to approximately 12 delegated matters and 8 completed settlements.

Appendix C

Key risks and the de-risking plan

Risk	How it gets de-risked
Incumbent competition	Narrow positioning in complex medical reasoning and accountable service
Services-margin trap	Bounded scope, separately priced integration, standard Skills, hours-per-case measurement
Legal quality and liability	Traceability, escalation, attorney approval, insurance
Data security	HIPAA-aligned controls, SOC 2 roadmap, tenant isolation, auditable access
Long sales cycles	Paid pilots, closed-case proof, association credibility
Limited California ICP	National selling after 3–5 reference accounts
Unauthorized practice / supervision	Licensed-counsel delivery, named supervising lawyer, explicit approval gates
Neutrality conflict	Independent mediator and clean neutral workspace
Settlement-pressure bias	Fixed capacity and work fees; no percentage of recovery or legal fees

Appendix D

Valuation depends on revenue quality, retention, margins, repeatability, and controlled professional risk—not AI sophistication alone.

Applied to $34.84M Year 3 exit recurring revenue run rate:

2× revenue

≈ $70M enterprise value

4× revenue

≈ $139M

6× revenue

≈ $209M

Illustrative scenarios only. Not a financing representation, valuation, or forecast.

Appendix E

Sources and assumptions

Legal market and attorney population

1. ABA National Lawyer Population Survey — attorney counts by state.
2. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics — legal services employment and establishment data.
3. IBISWorld / industry revenue benchmarks for personal injury law firms.

California market structure and MICRA

4. California MICRA statute and 2022 amendment schedule (AB 35) — non-economic damages caps.
5. State Bar of California — active attorney and firm structure data.

Competitor / category validation

6. Public product and funding disclosures from legal AI vendors in medical summarization, demand drafting, and record retrieval.
7. Published legal technology adoption surveys.

Case-management platforms

8. Filevine, Litify, SmartAdvocate, and Clio public product and integration documentation.

Professional responsibility and mediation boundaries

9. ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct — Rules 1.1, 5.3, 5.5, and 1.2(a) settlement authority.
10. ABA Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators — neutrality and impartiality.

Modeled figures

11. Jureva preliminary management model, Version 2.0. All economics, funnels, market sizing, and three-year figures are modeled assumptions requiring validation.