For companies, not individuals. A law firm meets the smallest published size rule of any program we track: Mode lists law firms with 6+ employees. Size is not the hard limit. Privilege and confidentiality take most matter files out of scope, so the real question is what is left.
Last checked: 7 October 2026. Buyer terms are quoted as published on the buyers' own pages.
Most buyer programs are built for companies with 20 or 30 staff and up. Mode makes an exception for law firms.
| Program | Published company payout | Published eligibility | Reading for a law firm |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mode | "$100K-$5M" | Law firms 6+ employees (general rule: 20+ full-time US office employees); several years of records the company owns; US-based teams the strongest fit | A US firm of six or more meets the size line. "Records the company owns" is where privilege comes in. |
| micro1 | "$100K-$2M+ for approved data packages" | 30+ employees (referral posting: 30 to 200), mature operations, documented processes, modern software tools, primarily English, US prioritized | Most small and mid-size firms fall below the published minimum. |
| Grepped | "$20K-$5M" | Any vertical; also pays individual professionals for expertise | No published size line. An individual lawyer's expertise is a separate route it describes. |
Last checked: 7 October 2026. Sources: data.mode.inc, micro1.ai/data-partnerships and micro1.ai/company-referral, grepped.ai, each as published on that date. Ranges are published figures across all sellers, not offers.
Why would a buyer set its bar so low for lawyers? Mode does not publish a reason, and we will not invent one. What can be said is that legal work is written reasoning. A small firm's documents show how a problem was framed, which rule was applied and why, and how a draft changed after review. micro1's page names "decision-making patterns" among what it wants, along with SOPs, knowledge bases, internal documentation and QA processes. Legal practice is dense with all of these.
The tools are familiar too. Among the data sources buyers list are Outlook and Gmail, SharePoint and Google Drive, Microsoft Teams, DocuSign, Notion and Confluence, and Zoom recordings and transcripts. Most firms run on some mix of these.
The catch is that nearly all of this reasoning was done for a client. That is what the rest of this page is about. Meeting a published size line is easy for a law firm; having material you are free to license is not. For a fast check against your own numbers, the eligibility checker runs in your browser and stores nothing.
Treat everything below as out of scope. The question is not whether a buyer would de-identify it, but whether you may hand it over at all.
Email, chat and call transcripts with clients sit at the center of attorney-client privilege.
Memos, research and drafts prepared for a matter are protected work product and client confidential information.
Transaction files usually carry NDAs and confidentiality terms owed to clients and counterparties.
Discovery material can be bound by protective orders and court rules on top of privilege.
Who your clients are is itself confidential in many matters. A conflicts database is a list of secrets.
DocuSign envelopes for wills, contracts and settlements are client documents, whatever system holds them.
Buyers do describe privacy steps. micro1's page says sensitive and confidential information is scrubbed, originals are deleted after processing and no customer information is exposed. Mode says it buys an agreed copy and de-identifies before onward delivery. Those statements describe what the buyer does after it receives data. They do not settle whether a lawyer may disclose client information to a buyer in the first place, which is governed by your own professional duties. Our page on client confidentiality and data sales covers the shared rules for firms that hold client secrets.
What remains is material about how the firm runs. It is smaller and less distinctive, but it is the part you are most likely to control.
How the firm opens a matter, runs conflict checks as a process, calendars deadlines and tracks them. The procedure, not the entries.
Staffing, task routing, file closing and records retention steps, as written in your manuals and checklists.
Time entry rules, invoice review steps and collections procedures. Client invoices themselves describe legal work and stay out.
Onboarding for paralegals and associates, IT and security policies, HR handbooks: written by the firm, about the firm.
Forms the firm wrote itself may be closer to its own material, but many grew out of client deals. Review each one with that history in mind.
Memos written to teach staff about a statute, not for a matter, may be in reach. Ask your ethics counsel before including any.
This is the easiest kind of material to scope, as our guide to documents, SOPs and knowledge bases explains. It is also the most generic. A buyer reviewing a small firm's operations manual is comparing it with many others, so expect the review to be frank about whether there is enough here. There is also a second route. Grepped says it pays individual professionals for expertise, which is a different arrangement from a firm data sale. A lawyer considering it still carries the same confidentiality duties for anything drawn from client work.
Lawyers know these rules better than any guide. The point is to apply them to a transaction that most ethics rules were not written for, and to get a second opinion before relying on your own reading. Raise these by name:
Questions for your ethics counsel: Does de-identification change our duty under our state's confidentiality rule? Are firm templates derived from client matters still client information? Do any client engagement terms forbid use of their material for AI training? What would we have to warrant to a buyer, and could we give that warranty truthfully?
General information, not legal advice. Talk to your own lawyer before you sign.
Everything below is invented to show the method.
Example Law PLLC is a made-up firm with five lawyers and four staff in one US office. It handles estate planning and small-business work. It uses Outlook, SharePoint, a practice management system, DocuSign and Microsoft Teams, with eleven years of history.
Published rules against its facts. Mode lists law firms at 6+ employees, so nine people meets the line. micro1's 30+ minimum is not met. Grepped publishes no size line. Meeting a size rule is not acceptance; every buyer reviews the data first.
| Item | Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Operations manual, intake and docketing checklists | In | Firm-written, no client content. |
| Staff training decks and internal policies | In | About the firm, written by the firm. |
| Teams channel on office procedures | In, after review | Threads that mention any client or matter are removed entirely. |
| Will and operating-agreement templates | Held back | Ethics counsel could not confirm they are free of client-derived terms. |
| Client email, matter files, DocuSign envelopes | Out | Privileged or confidential client information. |
| Conflicts database | Out | Client identities are confidential. |
The honest result is a small package. The firm might share a manifest and a few samples and learn that buyers are not interested at this size. That is a reasonable outcome, and far better than discovering a confidentiality problem after signing.
All three firms are invented. They show how the size rules and the privilege limit interact as a firm grows. Illustrative, not an offer.
The firm's own material is a procedures manual, intake forms and a few internal policies. Almost everything else is matter work. Expect the buyer's review to turn on whether there is enough firm-owned material to be useful at all.
One departure takes the firm below the line, so check headcount on the day you apply, not last year's.
Practice groups usually bring written checklists, associate training, docketing rules and a document management system organized by matter number. Matter numbering helps, because whole matters can be excluded cleanly.
The firm-owned share is larger, but so is the number of client engagement terms to read.
A firm with in-house counsel and an ethics function can run the review properly, but it will not be quick. Institutional clients' outside counsel guidelines may restrict use of their information in detail.
Expect internal approval, not the buyer, to be the longest step.
The model confidentiality rule is built around informed consent and stated exceptions. That shapes how a firm should think about notice.
In its model form, Rule 1.6 says a lawyer shall not reveal information relating to a representation unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation, or a listed exception applies. A data license is not carrying out anyone's representation. So if anything client-derived is in scope, expect consent to be the central question, and what makes consent "informed" for this use is a question for your ethics counsel and your state's version of the rule.
If nothing client-derived is in scope, notice is a relationship question rather than an ethics one. Clients who learn that their law firm licensed data to an AI company may still ask whether their matter was in it. Have a short, accurate answer ready, and keep the written scope decision with the agreement so you can show it.
Looking forward, the question also touches new engagements. A firm that expects to license operational data again may want its engagement letters to say plainly that client information is never part of such a license. Whether any broader language would be permissible or wise is for ethics counsel. Either way, clients should not learn about a data license from a buyer's announcement or a news story before they hear it from the firm.
Generic contract questions for any seller, ordered for a firm whose main exposure is to its own clients.
Practitioners cite 60 to 90 days to close, through NDA, buyer review, agreement, export, de-identification and acceptance. For the wider legal picture, see is it legal to sell company data.
Independent site. Some links are referral links: if your company signs with a buyer through them, the buyer may pay us a fee. You are not charged, and we never see your data.
We are not a partner, agent or representative of any buyer, and we cannot promise acceptance, amounts or timing. micro1 lists 30+ employees, so most small firms will not meet its published rule. Compare all terms on buyer programs compared first.Mode publishes a minimum of 6+ employees for law firms, the smallest published minimum we track. Its general rule is 20+ full-time US office employees. micro1 publishes 30+ employees. Grepped says any vertical. As published, checked 7 October 2026.
Plan on no. Attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine and your state's version of the confidentiality rule (ABA Model Rule 1.6) protect client information, and whether de-identification changes that is a question for your own ethics counsel, not something to assume.
Material about running the firm rather than about clients: intake and docketing procedures, practice management workflows, billing processes, staff training and internal policies, and possibly templates the firm wrote itself, after review.
Grepped says it also pays individual professionals for expertise. That is a separate route from a firm data sale, and a lawyer's own confidentiality duties still apply to anything drawn from client work.
Sometimes it is not, and that is a fair outcome. Once matter files are removed, what is left is often small. Buyers review data before making any offer, and published ranges such as Mode's $100K-$5M are ranges, not offers.
If anything client-derived is in scope, expect consent to be the first question your ethics counsel raises, because the model confidentiality rule turns on informed consent or a stated exception. Your state's version may differ. What valid informed consent would require for this use is a question for your own ethics counsel.
Ask before signing whether the agreement includes a claw-back process: prompt notice to you, return or deletion of the material, and written confirmation. This is a question to put to any buyer, not a description of a named buyer's terms.