We respect attorney-client confidentiality. No tracking pixels in our emails.
Solo practitioners face a unique challenge: the same AI tools available to BigLaw at enterprise pricing need to work within a $200/month budget. Here is how to build a capable stack.
Move from this guide to practical legal AI tool shortlists and comparison pages.
A solo immigration attorney in Phoenix ran the numbers in January 2026 and found that her three AI subscriptions — a legal research platform, a practice management system with AI features, and a document drafting assistant — totaled $187 per month. Her conservative estimate of time saved was 1.2 hours per working day. At her billing rate of $285/hour, that was $85,500 in annual recovered capacity. She was not at full utilization, but even after applying a 50% revenue conversion rate, her AI stack was returning approximately 18x its cost.
Her stack was not particularly exotic. She had spent about four hours researching options, talked to two colleagues who were also solo practitioners, and made three relatively simple decisions. The challenge for most solos is not finding AI tools — it is knowing which three or four to prioritize when $200 per month does not leave room for experimentation, and when the cost of a poor choice is measured in wasted training time as much as subscription fees.
This article provides a specific, prioritized budget framework for solo practitioners, with tool recommendations in each category, honest assessments of free and freemium options, and the ROI math for single-tool decisions when budget is truly limited.
Solo practitioners represent the largest segment of the US legal market by attorney count, and they face the steepest AI adoption challenge: the full enterprise AI capabilities that large firms negotiate at per-attorney volume discounts are priced for deployment at scale. A Westlaw enterprise subscription that costs $200/attorney/month at a 500-attorney firm might cost $350/month for a solo. The same capability cost differential applies across nearly every legal AI category.
The solo AI market has responded with pricing tiers specifically designed for small and solo practices. Most major legal AI platforms now offer solo or small-firm tiers with reduced per-attorney pricing. Several dedicated solo-focused platforms have emerged that bundle capabilities at price points designed for the solo budget constraint.
The selection problem has also improved. In 2022-2023, solos faced a landscape of enterprise-focused tools with unclear solo applicability. In 2026, the tool landscape includes options explicitly designed and priced for solo practice, with onboarding, support, and feature sets matched to solo workflows.
The remaining challenge is prioritization. With $200/month to spend across four categories, solos cannot afford to make poor choices or carry underutilized subscriptions. This article provides the framework for making those choices efficiently.
Category 1: Legal Research ($70-100/month)
This is the highest-ROI category for most solos. Authenticated legal database access with AI research capabilities reduces both research time and citation verification risk. The key distinction is between AI tools grounded in authenticated legal databases (lower hallucination risk, higher subscription cost) and generalist AI tools applied to legal research (higher hallucination risk, lower subscription cost).
For litigation solos: authenticated research with citator access is not optional — the verification risk of generalist AI for court filings is too high. Casetext at approximately $65-80/month for solo plans, or Fastcase at lower price points, are the strongest options in this tier.
For transactional solos: if your research is primarily regulatory and statutory rather than case law intensive, the risk profile is somewhat different. You still need authenticated sources for any client advice, but the frequency of court filings is lower.
Category 2: Practice Management with AI ($50-80/month)
Practice management is where solos recapture the most non-billable time — intake, billing, scheduling, document organization, and client communication automation. The key buying criterion is whether AI features are built in or require a separate subscription.
Clio at approximately $49-70/month for solo plans includes AI-assisted features for intake, billing, and document management. MyCase is similarly priced with strong mobile functionality. Smokeball is built specifically for small firm workflows with strong document automation.
The practice management choice is the most locked-in decision in your stack — switching later is disruptive. Invest time in the selection rather than defaulting to name recognition.
Category 3: Document Drafting Assistance ($30-50/month)
For solos with high drafting volume, a dedicated drafting tool is worthwhile. For solos with moderate drafting needs, the AI features in your research tool or practice management platform may be sufficient, making this category optional if budget is tight.
Spellbook at approximately $30-40/month for solo plans offers strong contract drafting assistance. DraftWise is another strong option for transactional solos. For litigation solos, the drafting assistance in CoCounsel or Casetext may cover this need without an additional subscription.
Category 4: Client Intake ($20-30/month or included in PM platform)
AI-assisted client intake — automated intake forms, conflict check automation, initial response emails — saves approximately 30-45 minutes per new client. For solos taking 3-5 new clients per month, this is meaningful. However, if your practice management platform includes intake automation, do not pay separately for it.
If budget forces a single-tool decision, apply this filter:
What is the largest time sink in your current practice? If it is research, start with research. If it is intake and admin, start with practice management. If it is drafting, start with a drafting tool.
Where does an error create the highest liability? Research errors in court filings create the highest liability exposure. If litigation is a significant part of your practice, research quality should be the first investment.
What is your billing rate? Higher billing rates make research tools more valuable (recovered billing capacity is worth more). Lower billing rates make practice management tools more valuable (non-billable time reduction has higher proportional impact).
Several free and freemium AI tools are available that provide legal research or drafting assistance. The critical question for any free tool is its data handling policy: does it use your inputs to train its models, and if so, what does inputting client information mean for your Rule 1.6 obligations?
Generative AI tools with training data policies that retain user inputs should not be used with identifiable client information without explicit client consent. This is not a theoretical concern — several state bars have specifically addressed it. Free tools that offer no confidentiality protections for user inputs are effectively unusable for client matters.
Free options that may be appropriate: Fastcase (free through some bar association memberships) for authenticated case law research; Google Scholar for case law verification (not research discovery); Clio's free tier for limited practice management use.
Litigation solos should allocate more to research (70% of budget) and less to drafting tools, which are less valuable for motion practice than for transactional drafting.
Immigration solos should prioritize research tools with strong regulatory coverage and practice management with strong intake automation — immigration clients require intensive intake and document management.
Estate planning solos get the most value from document automation and drafting tools, as document generation is a large proportion of billable work.
Real estate solos should evaluate whether contract review AI (e.g., Spellbook) delivers sufficient ROI to justify inclusion in the stack.
A recently launched solo family law attorney in Austin built her AI stack with a $180/month budget:
After 90 days, she measured time savings: 45 minutes/day from automated intake and billing in Clio, 55 minutes/day from Casetext research assistance. Total: 100 minutes/day at her billing rate of $325/hour.
Annual recovered capacity value: $325/hour × (100 min ÷ 60) × 250 days = approximately $135,000. After a conservative 40% revenue conversion rate (she was building her client base and not yet at full capacity), the realized value was approximately $54,000. Against an annual tool cost of $1,740, her ROI was 31x — above average but not unusual for a solo attorney with a growing practice and available capacity to convert.
Q: Is it worth paying for a solo tier of Westlaw or LexisNexis rather than a cheaper alternative?
A: For litigation solos who file regularly with courts, the citator access (KeyCite or Shepard's) is worth a premium. For solos doing primarily transactional or advisory work, alternatives like Casetext or Fastcase at lower price points often provide sufficient coverage.
Q: Can I use ChatGPT or Claude directly for legal research to save money?
A: For exploratory thinking and organizing research strategies, yes — with appropriate data hygiene (no client-identifying information). For any research that will support client advice or court filings, no — the hallucination risk and lack of authenticated grounding is too high to rely on without independent verification, which eliminates most of the time savings.
Q: My bar association offers free Fastcase access. Is that enough for most of my research needs?
A: For case law research in a general practice, Fastcase through bar associations covers the majority of needs. Gaps appear in specialized areas (tax, administrative, regulatory), very recent cases, and depth of secondary sources. It is an excellent free tool and a legitimate alternative to paid research for solos with tight budgets.
Q: How do I decide between a dedicated research tool and a practice management platform that includes some research features?
A: If your practice is research-intensive (litigation, complex regulatory work), a dedicated research tool with authenticated database grounding is worth the separate subscription. If your practice is primarily client-service and document-intensive with moderate research needs, a strong PM platform with basic AI features may be sufficient.
Q: Should a solo practitioner use AI for client-facing communications — emails, status updates, intake responses?
A: With appropriate review, yes. AI-drafted initial intake responses and status update templates save meaningful time. The requirement is that you review and approve every client-facing communication before it goes out — no automated sending without attorney review. This is both an ethical requirement and practical risk management.
Solo practitioners must understand billable-hour math when justifying AI tool costs, and watch for ai-hallucination risks when using AI for legal research without a supervisory review layer.
Building an effective AI stack for solo practice in 2026 is achievable within a $200/month budget. The four-category framework — research, practice management, document drafting, and intake — covers the full scope of solo practice workflow, and the right combination depends on practice area, billing rate, and current time allocation.
When budget forces prioritization, start with whatever category creates the largest time sink in your current practice. For most litigation solos, that is research. For most transactional or advisory solos, it may be document drafting or client management.
Free tools are available and legitimate for some use cases, but require careful evaluation of data handling policies before use with any client information. The cost of a data handling violation — bar disciplinary action, client notification obligations, reputational damage — far exceeds the cost of an appropriate paid subscription.
This article reflects independent editorial analysis. LawyerAI does not accept payment for editorial coverage. Tool scores are based on methodology described in Our 5-Dimension Methodology. Last reviewed: 2026-08-26.
