Where we are differentiated
Court and public-sector deployment; citation verification that marks each authority verified, mismatched or superseded before a draft is approved.
Investor overview
Legal work, from intake to judgment.
Practice management for Indian advocates, firms and courts — with an opening into the public sector that the incumbents are not built for.
01 — The market
Digitisation is being pushed from the bench
The Supreme Court e-Committee, the move to e-filing, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules have made a digital backbone a practical requirement rather than a preference. Indian practice-management software currently starts at roughly ₹1,000 per user per month; international products sell into India at $49–119 per user per month.
₹1,000Entry price per user per month for India-built practice software
$49–119Per user per month for Clio and MyCase, the global incumbents
DPDPData-protection rules that raise the cost of ungoverned shared drives
02 — Competition
A crowded middle, an empty top end
India-built: Provakil, MyKase, LawSathi, Counsel Crest, Manage My Lawsuits, Zelican. Global: Clio, MyCase, PracticePanther, CloudLex, Smokeball. Case management, documents and billing are table stakes; so are ethical walls in the mature products.
What nobody in that list sells is the court itself. The Indian products target advocates and firms; Provakil aims at enterprise in-house teams. Registries and tribunals need on-premise deployment, data residency and procurement documentation — which is a different product motion, not a discount.
Where we are not
Matters, hearings, documents, billing, audit and client portals. Everyone has these. They are the cost of entry, not the pitch.
03 — Product
Built and running today
- ShippedMatters, clients, evidence vaults, hearings, tasks, authorities library, drafting with citation control, time and billing, outcomes, client portal, audit.
- ConfidentialityPractice-group ethical walls enforced at the data layer; invitation-only access; TOTP two-factor required for owners and administrators.
- Co-counselMatter-scoped collaboration between firms, gated on the receiving firm’s administrator.
- DeploymentShared tenancy, dedicated database, or on-premise — recorded per customer.
- ReachTen languages including five Indian languages, with right-to-left support.
04 — Model
Seat bundles, not per-seat creep
| Tier | Seats | India / month | Global / month |
|---|---|---|---|
| Individual advocate | 1 | ₹5,000/- | $500 |
| Law firm | 10 | ₹45,000/- | $45,000 |
| Courts & public sector | 50 | ₹1,00,000/- | Quoted |
Three revenue lines beyond licence: a one-time installation fee covering domain and database provisioning, annual maintenance at 18% of the yearly package from year two, and 18% off for paying a year up front — which pulls cash forward and cuts churn.
To be completed by the founder: the global tier is currently priced at the same numeral as the rupee tier, which places a 10-seat firm at roughly $4,500 per user per month against a market of $49–119. Confirm the intended international price before this deck is shown to an investor — it is the first thing a diligent one will test.
05 — Traction
Where we actually are
The platform is live in production with a working owner console reporting ARR, MRR, net profit and spend across tenants. Commercially, Everra is pre-revenue. One organisation is onboarded — the founding workspace — and it is on trial, not paying.
These figures are deliberately blank rather than estimated: paying firms, pipeline, conversion from trial, CAC, churn, and any letters of intent. Numbers invented here would not survive diligence, and a deck that overstates traction is worse than one that shows a small honest number.
06 — Why this can win
Two defensible edges
The public sector
Courts cannot put case data on third-party cloud. On-premise, data residency and procurement documentation are a barrier to the SaaS-only incumbents, and a long contract once cleared.
Confidentiality as architecture
Ethical walls enforced in the data layer rather than the interface, with refusals that reveal nothing. For a profession where a leak is a disciplinary matter, this is the buying criterion.